[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40154-40182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15544]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 236

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0075, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC75


Positive Train Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations governing changes to positive 
train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system performance. 
First, recognizing that the railroad industry intends to enhance FRA-
certified PTC systems to continue improving rail safety and PTC 
technology's reliability and operability, FRA is modifying the process 
by which a host railroad must submit a request for amendment (RFA) to 
FRA before making certain changes to its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) and 
FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable more effective FRA 
oversight, this final rule: Expands an existing reporting requirement 
by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual; broadens the 
reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related 
information, including about the technology's positive impact on rail 
safety, not just failure-related information; and requires host 
railroads to utilize a new, standardized report form.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time and 
search for Docket No. FRA-2019-0075.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Deputy Staff Director, 
Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82c5e3e0e7accce7e3eec2e6edf6ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0a7818285ceae85818ca0848f94ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser, 
telephone: 202-493-0445, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91c2e5f4e1f9f0fff8f4bfd0fff5f4e3e2feffd1f5fee5bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df8cabbaafb7beb1b6baf19eb1bbbaadacb0b19fbbb0abf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Public Participation
    A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
    B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
    C. Introduction to Comments on the NPRM
III. Summary of the Main Provisions in the Final Rule
    A. Establishing a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC 
Systems and the Associated PTCSPs
    B. Expanding the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. International Trade Impact Assessment
    F. Environmental Impact
    G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Energy Impact

I. Executive Summary

    Section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
mandates each Class I railroad, and each entity providing regularly 
scheduled intercity

[[Page 40155]]

or commuter rail passenger transportation, to implement an FRA-
certified PTC system on: (1) its main lines over which poison- or 
toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported, if the line 
carries five million or more gross tons of any annual traffic; (2) its 
main lines over which intercity or commuter rail passenger 
transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other tracks the 
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by regulation or 
order.\1\ By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent certain 
accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, over-speed 
derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of 
trains through switches left in the wrong position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, 
104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive 
Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015), and the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section 
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), codified as amended 
at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 236, subpart I.
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 (setting 
forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, 35 host railroads--including 7 Class I railroads, 23 
intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads, and 5 Class II or 
III, short line, or terminal railroads--are directly subject to the 
statutory mandate.\3\ The statutory mandate generally required that by 
December 31, 2020, FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems must 
govern operations on all PTC-mandated main lines, currently 
encompassing nearly 58,000 route miles nationwide.\4\ 49 U.S.C. 
20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(6)-(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The infographics on FRA's PTC website (https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc) 
identify 41 railroads subject to the statutory mandate as of 
December 31, 2020, but six of those 41 railroads are tenant-only 
commuter railroads. As this final rule primarily focuses on 
requirements specific to host railroads, this final rule references 
the current number of PTC-mandated host railroads (35) and any host 
railroads that may either become subject to the statutory mandate or 
voluntarily implement PTC systems in the future. Section V 
(Regulatory Impact and Notices) estimates this final rule and FRA's 
PTC regulations in general will apply, on average, to 1.5 additional 
host railroads per year.
    \4\ Except a railroad's controlling locomotives or cab cars that 
are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)-(k) or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives 
operating in PTC territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 29, 2020, FRA announced that railroads had fully 
implemented PTC technology on all PTC-mandated main lines.\5\ As of 
that date, railroads reported that interoperability \6\ had been 
achieved between the applicable host railroads and tenant railroads 
that operate on PTC-mandated main lines, which included 209 
interoperable host-tenant railroad relationships as of December 
2020.\7\ Furthermore, as required under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h), FRA 
approved each host railroad's PTCSP and certified that each PTC system 
\8\ complied with the technical requirements for PTC systems under 
FRA's regulations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Announces Landmark 
Achievement with Full Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 
29, 2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf.
    \6\ ``Interoperability'' is the general requirement that the 
controlling locomotives and cab cars of any host railroad and tenant 
railroad operating on the same main line must communicate with and 
respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over 
property boundaries, except as otherwise permitted by law. 49 U.S.C. 
20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)-(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 
236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3).
    \7\ For purposes of FRA's PTC regulations, a host railroad is 
``a railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of 
track,'' and a tenant railroad is ``a railroad, other than a host 
railroad, operating on track upon which a PTC system is required.'' 
49 CFR 236.1003(b).
    \8\ Currently, the following PTC systems are in operation in the 
United States: (1) The Interoperable Electronic Train Management 
System (I-ETMS), which Class I railroads and many commuter railroads 
have fully implemented; (2) the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement 
System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II 
(ASES II), the PTC system most railroads operating on the Northeast 
Corridor (NEC) have fully implemented; (3) Enhanced Automatic Train 
Control (E-ATC), which five host railroads have fully implemented; 
(4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has fully implemented in 
parts of Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train Control 
(CBTC) system, which one commuter railroad has fully implemented.
    \9\ 49 CFR 236.1009, 236.1015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through FRA's nine PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions, from 
2018 to 2020, and other regular coordination with railroads 
implementing PTC systems, PTC system vendors and suppliers, and other 
stakeholders, FRA proactively identified aspects of FRA's existing PTC 
regulations that could impede either PTC-related innovation or FRA's 
oversight, after the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020. 
Accordingly, on December 18, 2020, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its PTC regulations to modify two regulatory 
provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and 236.1029(h), which, if not revised, 
would impede the industry's ability to advance PTC technology 
efficiently and FRA's ability to oversee the performance and 
reliability of PTC systems effectively.\10\ FRA received seven sets of 
written comments in response to that NPRM, which were generally 
supportive of FRA's proposals. FRA responds to these seven sets of 
comments in Sections II (Background and Public Participation) and IV 
(Section-by-Section Analysis) of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received, FRA is revising its PTC regulations 
in two ways. First, FRA is issuing this final rule to streamline the 
process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified 
systems. This revised RFA process requires host railroads to provide 
certain documentation, analysis, and safety assurances in a concise 
RFA. This final rule also establishes a 45-day deadline for FRA to 
review and approve or deny railroads' RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs 
or FRA-certified PTC systems. In addition, this final rule permits host 
railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 
their PTCSPs and PTC Development Plans (PTCDPs).
    Second, FRA is expanding an existing reporting requirement--49 CFR 
236.1029(h), Annual report of system failures--by increasing the 
frequency of the reporting requirement from annual to biannual; 
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and 
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) \11\ to enable more 
effective FRA oversight. In addition, FRA is amending Sec.  236.1029(h) 
by updating the provision to use certain statutory terminology for 
consistency; clarifying the ambiguous filing obligation by specifying 
that only host railroads directly submit these reports to FRA; and 
explicitly requiring tenant railroads to provide the necessary data to 
their applicable host railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A copy of the form is available in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA analyzed the economic impact of this final rule over a ten-year 
period and estimated its quantitative costs and benefits, which are 
shown in the table below. The business benefits associated with FRA's 
revisions to Sec.  236.1021--i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs 
to PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and 
PTCDPs--will outweigh the costs associated with FRA's expansion of the 
reporting requirement under paragraph (h) of Sec.  236.1029. This final 
rule will also result in savings for the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Net Benefits = (Industry Business Benefits + Government 
Savings)-Industry Costs.

[[Page 40156]]



                                            Net Benefits in Millions
                                                 [2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Present value    Present value
                                                     7%               3%         Annualized 7%    Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Costs..............................          ($1.52)          ($1.75)          ($0.22)          ($0.21)
Industry Business Benefits..................             6.12             7.20             0.87             0.84
Government Savings..........................            17.98            21.19             2.56             2.48
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits \12\.......................            22.58            26.64             3.21             3.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

    In addition to the quantified benefits in the table above, FRA 
expects this final rule will also result in safety benefits for the 
railroad industry. For example, this final rule will enable railroads 
to deploy PTC-related safety improvements and technological 
advancements more efficiently and frequently, under an expedited RFA 
process, and the expanded reporting requirement will help railroads and 
FRA identify systemic failures more quickly and precisely, enabling 
swifter intervention and resolution.

II. Background and Public Participation

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations

    Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required 
the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe PTC regulations necessary 
to implement the statutory mandate, including regulations specifying 
the essential technical functionalities of PTC systems and the means by 
which FRA certifies PTC systems.\13\ The Secretary delegated to the 
Federal Railroad Administrator the authority to carry out the functions 
and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), 
codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 
CFR 1.89(b), FRA issued its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010, 
which is set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, 
Positive Train Control Systems.\14\ FRA's PTC regulations under 49 CFR 
part 236, subpart I, prescribe ``minimum, performance-based safety 
standards for PTC systems . . . including requirements to ensure that 
the development, functionality, architecture, installation, 
implementation, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair, 
and modification of those PTC systems will achieve and maintain an 
acceptable level of safety.'' 49 CFR 236.1001(a). FRA subsequently 
amended its PTC regulations via final rules issued in 2010, 2012, 2014, 
and 2016.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
    \15\ 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14, 2012); 
79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, FRA revises three sections, 49 CFR 236.1003, 
236.1021, and 236.1029, of FRA's existing PTC regulations pursuant to 
its specific authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 U.S.C. 20157(g), and 
its general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to prescribe regulations 
and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.

B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM

    FRA regularly engages with host railroads, tenant railroads, and 
PTC system vendors and suppliers, as part of FRA's oversight of 
railroads' implementation of PTC systems on the mandated main lines 
under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other lines where railroads are 
voluntarily implementing PTC technology. This included multiple PTC 
Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 2020.\16\ For a detailed discussion 
regarding these sessions and other public participation prior to FRA's 
issuance of the NPRM, please see Section II-B of the NPRM.\17\ The 
provisions in this final rule are based on FRA's own review and 
analysis, industry's feedback in 2019 and 2020 before publication of 
the NPRM, and the comments received on the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ All presentations from FRA's PTC Collaboration Sessions are 
available in FRA's eLibrary, including direct links on FRA's PTC 
website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc.
    \17\ 85 FR 82400, 82403-04 (Dec. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Introduction to Comments on the NPRM

    FRA received seven sets of comments from several associations, 
railroads, and individuals in response to the NPRM FRA published on 
December 18, 2020.\18\ FRA lists here the comments it received in 
reverse chronological order. On February 16, 2021, the Association of 
American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Association (ASLRRA) jointly filed comments on behalf of 
themselves and their member railroads. On February 16, 2021, the 
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) submitted comments on 
behalf of itself, its member organizations, and the commuter rail 
industry. Furthermore, on February 16, 2021, Amtrak and New Jersey 
Transit (NJT) submitted their own respective comments, noting that they 
also support AAR and ASLRRA's jointly filed comments. On December 30, 
2020, David Schanoes submitted two separate comments on the NPRM. On 
December 21, 2020, Patrick Coyle submitted comments. FRA thanks each 
commenter for the time and effort put into the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As most comments FRA received are directed at a specific regulatory 
change FRA proposed in the NPRM, FRA discusses them in the appropriate 
portions of Section IV (Section-by-Section Analysis) of this final 
rule.
    In this section, FRA discusses only comments generally applicable 
to this rulemaking and comments outside the scope of the rulemaking. In 
general, the comments expressed support for both of FRA's proposals in 
the NPRM. Several commenters also commended FRA for proposing changes 
to its oversight and regulation of PTC technology now that it has been 
fully implemented on all main lines currently subject to the mandate.
    In its comments, APTA asserts that, as a general matter, FRA must 
justify each proposal of its NPRM separately, taking issue with FRA's 
acknowledgement in the executive summary of the NPRM that the costs 
associated with expanding the reporting requirement under Sec.  
236.1029(h) are outweighed by the savings or business benefits incurred 
by FRA's streamlining of Sec.  236.1021. More specifically, APTA states 
that these issues should not be considered together, and FRA must 
justify each proposal separately on its own merits.
    FRA agrees that it should independently justify each change to its 
PTC regulations, which FRA has done

[[Page 40157]]

in Sections III (Summary of the Main Provisions in the Final Rule), IV 
(Section-by-Section Analysis), and V (Regulatory Impact and Notices) of 
this final rule. Consistent with FRA's approach in the NPRM, this final 
rule identifies and explains the need and basis for each change. 
Intended only as an overview, Section I (Executive Summary) summarizes 
the overall industry costs, business benefits, government savings, and 
net benefits of the final rule.
    In addition, APTA's comments include a general request from the 
commuter rail industry for FRA to review its cost-benefit analysis 
associated with the changes to Sec.  236.1029(h) FRA proposed in the 
NPRM. Accordingly, based on comments received, FRA thoroughly reviewed 
and updated its estimate of the increased burden associated with 
expanding the reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), which FRA 
discusses in Section V (Regulatory Impact and Notices).
    Also, FRA received several comments that are outside the scope of 
this rulemaking. Specifically, an individual commented that all federal 
agencies must step up their activities related to cybersecurity, noting 
that PTC technology is one area where FRA must proactively address 
cybersecurity needs. That comment acknowledges that a comprehensive 
attempt to addressing cybersecurity challenges would require a separate 
rulemaking. Although the comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, FRA wants to note that its existing regulations establish 
security requirements for PTC systems under 49 CFR 236.1033, 
Communications and security requirements, including the requirement for 
all wireless communications between the office, wayside, and onboard 
components in a PTC system to provide cryptographic message integrity 
and authentication.\19\ In addition, FRA notes that certain 
cybersecurity issues resulting in PTC system failures, defective 
conditions, or previously unidentified hazards are currently reportable 
under 49 CFR 236.1023, Errors and malfunctions, and cybersecurity 
issues resulting in initialization failures, cut outs, or malfunctions, 
will be reportable in the new Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) under 49 CFR 236.1029(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual also commented that FRA should expand the scope of 49 
CFR 236.1023(b), Errors and malfunctions, to include third-party 
reports of software and firmware vulnerabilities. The comment 
rightfully observes that such a change is also outside the scope of 
this rulemaking, as the NPRM did not propose amending Sec.  236.1023 
and, therefore, this final rule does not address the substance of the 
comment.

III. Summary of the Main Provisions in the Final Rule

A. Establishing a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems 
and the Associated PTCSPs

    FRA's PTC regulations have always acknowledged that after 
``implementation of a train control system, the subject railroad may 
have legitimate reasons for making changes in the system design,'' 
among other changes, including to a PTC system's functionality.\20\ 
Indeed, FRA is aware that host railroads will need to deploy new PTC 
software releases, among other changes, to ensure their PTC systems are 
performing properly--for example, to fix certain bugs or defects or 
eliminate newly discovered hazards. In addition to incremental changes 
to PTC systems that are necessary for the continued safe and proper 
functioning of the technology, FRA understands that several railroads 
and PTC system vendors and suppliers have chosen to design and develop 
their PTC systems to perform functions in addition to the minimum, 
performance-based functions specified under the statutory mandate and 
FRA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, however, FRA's PTC regulations prohibit a railroad from 
making certain changes to its FRA-approved PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC 
system unless the railroad files an RFA to its PTCSP and obtains 
approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety. 49 CFR 
236.1021. Though FRA's existing regulations specify that FRA will, to 
the extent practicable, review and issue a decision regarding a host 
railroad's initially filed PTCSP within 180 days of the date it was 
filed, FRA's regulations do not currently specify an estimated timeline 
for reviewing and approving or denying railroads' subsequent RFAs to 
their PTCSPs.
    Instead of the existing RFA approval process involving complex 
content requirements and an indefinite decision timeline, this final 
rule: (1) Requires railroads to comply with a streamlined RFA process, 
including providing certain documentation, analysis, and safety 
assurances; and (2) establishes a 45-day deadline for FRA's review and 
issuance of a decision. The improved process will enable the industry 
to implement technological enhancements more efficiently, and the clear 
timeline will help ensure a more predictable and transparent FRA review 
process going forward.
    In addition, this final rule permits host railroads utilizing the 
same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and 
PTCDPs. Appreciating that changes to safety-critical elements, 
including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system will 
likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads operating that same type 
of PTC system, FRA's final rule outlines a path for such host railroads 
to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific instructions under 
new paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.  236.1021. FRA recognizes that 
modifying and simplifying the process for host railroads to submit RFAs 
to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems is necessary to facilitate 
required maintenance and upgrades to PTC technology and encourage 
railroads to enhance their PTC systems to continue to improve rail 
safety.

B. Expanding the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements

    FRA's regulations currently require a railroad to submit an annual 
report by April 16th each year regarding the number of PTC system 
failures, ``including but not limited to locomotive, wayside, 
communications, and back office system failures,'' that occurred during 
the previous calendar year. 49 CFR 236.1029(h). The first failure-
related annual reports pursuant to Sec.  236.1029(h) were due on April 
16, 2019, from the four host railroads whose statutory deadline was 
December 31, 2018, for the full implementation of a PTC system on their 
required main lines. FRA has found that the annual reports railroads 
submitted to date have been brief (e.g., as short as half of a page) 
and included minimal information, but still technically satisfied the 
existing content requirements under Sec.  236.1029(h).
    Because the minimal information currently required under Sec.  
236.1029(h) does not permit FRA to monitor adequately the rate at which 
PTC system failures occur, or to evaluate improvements over time, FRA 
is revising Sec.  236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform its oversight 
functions effectively. Specifically, FRA is increasing the frequency of 
this reporting requirement from annual to biannual, which will enable 
FRA to monitor more closely trends in PTC system reliability. In 
addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under Sec.  236.1029(h) 
are uniform, comparable,

[[Page 40158]]

and objective, FRA is revising this reporting requirement by specifying 
the exact types of statistics and information the reports must include.
    Furthermore, FRA is amending Sec.  236.1029(h) to make it 
consistent with the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4), as the existing statutory and regulatory provisions use 
different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. As background, 
the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 
established a reporting requirement that applies only temporarily, from 
October 29, 2015, to December 31, 2021.\21\ On June 5, 2020, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the Statutory Notification of 
PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-
0553),\22\ which FRA developed in 2019, and then revised in 2020 based 
on feedback from AAR and APTA.\23\ Host railroads must submit that form 
monthly to comply with 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary 
reporting requirement expires on December 31, 2021.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
    \22\ Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/.
    \23\ For additional detail, please see 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 
2019) and 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \24\ See also 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing DOT 
to assess civil penalties for any violation of the statutory 
mandate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's new Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) under revised Sec.  236.1029(h) will incorporate both: (1) 
The minimal information currently required under Sec.  236.1029(h); and 
(2) the corresponding types of data railroads must submit until 
December 31, 2021, in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). Similarly, this final rule revises 
Sec.  236.1029(h) to utilize the failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)--initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--instead 
of the broad, imprecise term currently used in Sec.  236.1029(h) 
(``failures'').
    Furthermore, during meetings FRA held before publication of the 
NPRM, railroads observed that, under existing Sec.  236.1029(h), it is 
unclear whether a host railroad, a tenant railroad, or both must submit 
the required reports to FRA, as the existing provision uses only the 
word ``railroad.'' In this final rule, FRA resolves this ambiguity by 
specifying that only host railroads must directly submit these reports 
to FRA. In addition, new paragraph (4) under Sec.  236.1029(h) requires 
each applicable tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines to submit the necessary information to each 
applicable host railroad on a continuous basis, which will enable host 
railroads to submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance to 
FRA, on behalf of themselves and their tenant railroads.
    FRA considers its changes to Sec.  236.1029(h) necessary to enable 
FRA to monitor the performance and reliability of railroads' PTC 
systems effectively throughout the country.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 236.1003 Definitions

    FRA is adding three definitions to paragraph (b) of this section to 
help ensure that FRA and the railroad industry consistently interpret 
the failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)--initialization 
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--as FRA is now also using these 
corresponding terms in revised Sec.  236.1029(h) and the associated 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 
Specifically, as proposed in the NPRM, FRA's final rule generally 
adopts the definitions of these three terms that FRA currently utilizes 
in the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 
6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553), which were, in part, revised and 
refined based on industry's feedback during the development of that 
corresponding form and the definitions therein.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025-
26 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comments on the NPRM, APTA seeks FRA's confirmation that a 
specific type of failure should be categorized as either a cut out or a 
malfunction (i.e., an en route failure), not an initialization failure. 
Specifically, APTA describes the following scenario: in a maintenance 
facility, before departing, a crew successfully initializes a PTC 
system on both ends of a push-pull train (the locomotive and the cab 
car), and the train successfully enters PTC-governed territory with the 
PTC system functioning properly. Subsequently, when the crew switches 
to operating the cab car (instead of the locomotive or vice versa), the 
PTC system then fails to activate properly.
    APTA requests confirmation that FRA would not consider this type of 
failure an initialization failure, but instead an en route failure, 
either a cut out or a malfunction. FRA concurs with APTA's 
interpretation. Under these specific circumstances, the PTC system was 
successfully initialized on both the locomotive and the cab car of the 
push-pull train, and the subsequent failure should be categorized as 
either a cut out or a malfunction, depending on the underlying facts, 
per the definitions under Sec.  236.1003(b).
    In addition, APTA requests confirmation that if the state of a PTC 
system is either ``disengaged'' or ``failed,'' that state is 
categorized as a malfunction, not as a cut out, under FRA's definitions 
of those terms. FRA concurs with that interpretation. FRA's 
understanding is that if a PTC system conveys it has ``disengaged'' or 
``failed,'' it is likely due to a failure in the communications network 
or elsewhere in the system, and it would be categorized as a 
malfunction, not a cut out.
    FRA received one comment requesting a change to its proposed 
definition of ``malfunction.'' \26\ Regarding FRA's proposed definition 
of ``malfunction,'' an individual suggested that FRA should add the 
following clause to the end of the definition: ``or any indication of 
unauthorized system access or other indicators of compromise described 
by system suppliers or vendors.'' FRA's proposed definition of 
``malfunction'' in the NPRM was ``any instance when a PTC system, 
subsystem, or component fails to perform the functions mandated under 
49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad's 
PTCSP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ FRA did not receive any comments requesting a change to its 
proposed definition of ``initialization failure'' or ``cut out.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA declines to add the requested clause to the end of the 
definition of ``malfunction'' for two reasons. First, host railroads 
have become accustomed to collecting data using the exact definition of 
``malfunction'' FRA proposed in the NPRM, as FRA developed that 
definition with industry's feedback during its establishment of the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 
Second, FRA's proposed definition of ``malfunction'' already captures 
certain instances that the commenter describes. For example, if a 
person or entity interferes with a PTC system, subsystem, or component 
to the point that the technology fails to perform the functions 
mandated under 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), FRA's PTC regulations, or the 
applicable host railroad's PTCSP, that would fall squarely within the 
definition of ``malfunction.''
    This final rule adopts the three definitions FRA proposed of ``cut 
out,'' ``initialization failure,'' and ``malfunction'' in the NPRM, 
with one modification. In the clause that refers to a person cutting 
out a PTC system in the definition of ``cut out,'' FRA is adding

[[Page 40159]]

the qualifying phrase ``with authorization'' to the definition in the 
final rule, which will help avoid the impression that trains crews may 
cut out a PTC system without first following the applicable procedures 
in the governing FRA-approved PTCSP and/or the railroad's own operating 
rules. Other than the addition of those two words for clarification, 
this final rule adopts the three definitions FRA proposed in the NPRM.

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and 
Amendments

    In general, the purpose of existing paragraphs (a) through (d) is 
to prohibit a railroad from making changes, as defined by this section, 
to a PTC system, PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP), PTCDP, or PTCSP, 
unless the railroad submits an RFA, with the content requirements under 
existing paragraphs (d)(1) through (7), and obtains approval from FRA's 
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety.
    In its comments, APTA states that Sec.  236.1021 will present an 
undue burden to its members if FRA broadly interprets the types of 
changes (often referred to as ``material modifications'') that require 
a host railroad to file an RFA under Sec.  236.1021(h). Consistent with 
FRA's statements in the NPRM, this rule does not revise the types of 
changes that trigger the filing of an RFA under existing paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (4) or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.  
236.1021(i)-(k). The types of changes that relate specifically to this 
final rule because they impact a host railroad's PTCSP and/or the 
underlying FRA-certified PTC system are the specific changes identified 
under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4)--i.e., a proposed modification 
of a safety-critical element of a PTC system or a proposed modification 
of a PTC system that affects the safety-critical functionality of any 
other PTC system with which it interoperates.
    FRA previously advised railroads about the scope of these terms, 
including common examples, during FRA's PTC Collaboration Sessions and 
in FRA's individual letters to railroads approving their PTCSPs and 
certifying their PTC systems. FRA remains available to answer questions 
about whether a specific type of change might trigger the requirement 
to file an RFA under existing Sec.  236.1021(h). However, as this final 
rule does not revise the list of qualifying changes under existing 
Sec.  236.1021(h)(1)-(4) or the exceptions currently set forth under 
Sec.  236.1021(i)-(k), FRA will handle such inquiries on a case-by-case 
basis and not in this rule.
    In addition, an individual commented that FRA should add a fifth 
type of change to existing paragraph (h), which FRA is not revising in 
this rulemaking. Specifically, the individual comments that FRA should 
add the following provision to the list of changes that trigger the 
filing of an RFA: ``(5) Any change in PTC component software or 
firmware.'' Even if FRA were amending the list under Sec.  
236.1021(h)(1)-(4), such an addition would be unnecessary as relevant 
changes to software or firmware are already covered within existing 
paragraphs (h)(3) and (4).\27\ For example, this final rule recognizes 
that certain software changes trigger the requirement to file an RFA 
under Sec.  236.1021, and FRA refers to relevant software changes in 
Sections II (Background and Public Participation), III (Summary of the 
Main Provisions in the Final Rule), and IV (Section-by-Section 
Analysis), as well as new paragraph (m)(2)(ii) under Sec.  236.1021, 
which requires an RFA to include any associated software release notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ That is, proposed modifications to safety-critical elements 
of PTC systems or proposed modifications to a PTC system that affect 
the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which 
it interoperates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, FRA's revisions to Sec.  236.1021 in this final rule 
are intended primarily to streamline the process by which host 
railroads must submit RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-
certified systems, based on FRA's recognition that the railroad 
industry intends to update and enhance FRA-certified PTC systems to 
advance rail safety.\28\ Accordingly, FRA's revisions to the process 
under existing paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are limited to removing any 
references to PTCSPs or PTC systems from those paragraphs, as this 
final rule establishes a new, streamlined process for RFAs associated 
with FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems under new 
paragraphs (l) and (m). In addition to removing references to PTCSPs 
from existing paragraphs (a), (c), and (d), this final rule removes 
paragraph (d)(7) in its entirety, and incorporates the general 
principle of paragraph (d)(7) into a new proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), 
as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For additional detail and background, please see the NPRM 
and Sections I (Executive Summary) and III-A (Establishing a New 
Process for Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated 
PTCSPs) of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, under new paragraph (l), FRA permits host 
railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 
their PTCSPs and PTCDPs, as those are system-based documents, albeit 
with some railroad-specific variances. FRA expects that host railroads 
will utilize this joint RFA option to the extent practicable, and it 
will efficiently leverage the industry's resources, help ensure 
coordination among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, 
and reduce the number of similar or identical RFA filings host 
railroads submit to FRA for review and approval.\29\ Because changes to 
safety-critical elements, including software or system architecture, of 
a certain PTC system will likely impact multiple, if not most, 
railroads implementing that same type of PTC system, this final rule 
outlines a path for such host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their 
PTCSPs, with specific instructions under new paragraphs (l) and (m). 
FRA recognizes that many host railroads participate in system-specific 
committees or working groups to ensure they maintain PTC system 
interoperability, among other objectives. FRA considers it acceptable 
for an association, committee, or working group to submit a joint RFA 
under paragraph (l), but such a joint RFA must be explicitly on behalf 
of two or more host railroads, and each host railroad must sign the 
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The current set of PTC-mandated host railroads have fully 
implemented five types of PTC systems, though FRA acknowledges that, 
in several cases, railroads implemented PTC systems of the same type 
in different manners (e.g., variances in design, functionality, and 
operation). This has required, and will continue to require, 
railroads to conduct additional testing and gap analyses to achieve 
and sustain interoperability, including configuration management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New paragraph (l) also specifies that only host railroads with the 
same PTC System Certification classification under 49 CFR 236.1015(e) 
may file a joint RFA to their PTCSPs. In its comments, APTA expresses 
general support for this provision, noting that many APTA members will 
benefit from this flexibility, especially railroads whose I-ETMS 
systems FRA has certified as mixed PTC systems. APTA further explains 
both that its members are ``small organizations with limited staff, 
funding, and resources,'' and that railroads operating ACSES II/ASES 
II, E-ATC, or non-vital, overlay I-ETMS systems may not benefit from 
this provision to the same extent.
    In the NPRM, FRA acknowledged that while new paragraph (l) provides 
the same flexibility for all host railroads operating all types of PTC 
systems, some groups of railroads might be better positioned to begin 
filing joint RFAs immediately. Though this final rule generally 
authorizes host railroads, utilizing the same type of PTC system, to 
file RFAs to their PTCSPs jointly, FRA expects this aspect of the final 
rule,

[[Page 40160]]

in the short term, primarily to impact host railroads implementing I-
ETMS and E-ATC because each respective I-ETMS and E-ATC system is 
similar to others of the same type, with a baseline functionality.\30\ 
Conversely, there is not a uniform standard or specification currently 
underlying the ACSES II or ASES II PTC systems that host railroads have 
implemented on the NEC. In addition, there is an array of ACSES II 
suppliers, including for the onboard, wayside, and communications 
subsystems. In the future, however, as the ACSES II railroads finish 
establishing the Interoperable Change Management Plan they are 
currently developing and finalizing, it is possible that at least some 
of the host railroads utilizing ACSES II or ASES II will elect to 
submit joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs for certain system-wide 
changes, consistent with the option under new paragraphs (l) and (m) of 
Sec.  236.1021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Also, with respect to I-ETMS and similar systems, FRA 
acknowledges that in January 2021, FRA's Railroad Safety Board 
approved AAR and ASLRRA's joint petition, dated August 14, 2020, for 
a temporary waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 236.1021. Specifically, 
FRA's approval of the waiver petition authorizes certain railroads 
to comply with an alternative RFA process, including the filing of 
joint RFAs, for PTCSP purposes. However, as requested, the waiver 
applies only to host railroads that operate an Interoperable Train 
Control PTC system that FRA has certified, or certifies, as a mixed 
PTC system under 49 CFR 236.1015(e)(4). FRA's approval letter states 
the waiver is in effect for five years or until FRA issues this 
final rule, whichever occurs first. For a copy of the waiver 
petition, or FRA's approval letter, please see public Docket No. 
FRA-2020-0068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, FRA welcomes joint RFAs from any group of host railroads 
utilizing the same type of PTC system with the same certification 
classification, as new paragraph (l) states. FRA remains available to 
provide technical assistance to any railroads that have questions about 
this provision and how to utilize the flexibility therein.
    Here is an example to help explain the practical effect of new 
paragraph (l). When an RFA is necessary under Sec.  236.1021 to account 
for certain proposed changes to railroads' I-ETMS PTCSPs, or I-ETMS 
itself, FRA expects a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system under Sec.  
236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system under Sec.  236.1015(e)(4). Two 
distinct RFAs are necessary under these circumstances, as the impact of 
the proposed change(s) must be analyzed in the context of the 
underlying safety analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs--a safety 
analysis that is structured differently based on whether FRA has 
certified the PTC system as a non-vital, overlay system; a vital, 
overlay system; a standalone system; or a mixed system.
    Furthermore, with respect to joint RFAs, new paragraph (l) 
specifies that, though most types of information required under new 
paragraph (m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a joint RFA must 
include the written confirmation and statement specified under new 
paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, from each host 
railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA.
    In this final rule, FRA outlines, in new paragraph (m), the 
mandatory, three-step process a host railroad must follow to make 
changes to its FRA-certified PTC system and the associated FRA-approved 
PTCSP. FRA intends the process under paragraph (m) to apply to all 
changes necessitating an RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) 
of this section--i.e., proposed changes to safety-critical elements of 
PTC systems and proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the 
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it 
interoperates. For brevity, FRA will refer to these changes as changes 
to safety-critical elements of PTC systems, as that is sufficiently 
broad for purposes of paragraph (m).
    New paragraph (m)(1) requires a host railroad to revise its PTCSP 
to account for each proposed change to its PTC system, and summarize 
such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the beginning of 
its PTCSP. FRA retains its authority to request a copy of a host 
railroad's governing PTCSP in accordance with 49 CFR 236.1009(h), FRA 
access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention. FRA did not receive any 
comments on new paragraph (m)(1), as proposed, and thus, FRA is 
adopting that paragraph without change.
    The introductory text in new paragraph (m)(2) specifically requires 
a host railroad to file an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) 
electronically, which could include electronic filing on FRA's Secure 
Information Repository (https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads 
currently file other PTC-related documents, or any other location FRA 
designates. If a host railroad wishes to seek confidential treatment of 
any part of its RFA, the railroad must comply with the existing process 
and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, Request for confidential 
treatment. That process includes marking the document properly with the 
necessary labels and redactions, and providing a statement justifying 
nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed. 
FRA will post a host railroad's RFA (the public, redacted version, if 
applicable) and FRA's final decision letter in the respective 
railroad's PTC docket on http://www.regulations.gov.\31\ FRA did not 
receive any comments on the introductory text in new paragraph (m)(2), 
as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting that introductory text without 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Railroads' applicable PTC docket numbers are available on 
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (v), FRA outlines the specific 
content requirements for an RFA to an FRA-certified PTC system and the 
associated PTCSP. The requirements focus on the core information and 
analysis FRA needs to review to ensure the PTC system, including any 
proposed changes, will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety 
than the existing PTC system. Importantly, new paragraph (m)(2)(i) 
requires the RFA to include a summary of the proposed changes to any 
safety-critical elements of a PTC system, including: (1) A summary of 
how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-critical 
functionality; (2) how any new hazards have been addressed and 
mitigated; (3) whether each change is a planned change that was 
previously included in all required analysis under Sec.  236.1015, or 
an unplanned change; and (4) the reason for the proposed changes, 
including whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an 
emergency or urgent issue.
    Regarding paragraph (m)(2)(i), APTA recommends that FRA remove the 
last part of the summary section of the RFA--i.e., ``including whether 
the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or urgent 
issue.'' FRA does not agree that this clause should be removed, as that 
type of statement will provide valuable information to FRA. For 
example, such information will help FRA understand why a specific RFA 
should be prioritized and expedited under the circumstances.
    Furthermore, for context, FRA's existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) 
through (v) of Sec.  236.1021 explain the distinction between an 
unplanned change and a planned change and impose certain additional 
requirements, including conducting suitable regression testing to FRA's 
satisfaction and filing a new PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain 
circumstances. As noted above, this final rule removes paragraph (d)(7) 
in its entirety and instead requires a host railroad to identify in its 
RFA under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only whether the

[[Page 40161]]

change is a planned change or an unplanned change. That basic 
information will be valuable to include in the abbreviated RFA under 
paragraph (m) because several railroads have already accounted for 
long-term, planned changes to their PTC systems and proactively 
integrated those assumptions into the corresponding analyses in their 
PTCSPs.
    As FRA noted in the NPRM, planned changes ``are those that the 
system developer and the railroad have included in the safety analysis 
associated with the PTC system, but have not yet implemented.'' In its 
comments, APTA asks FRA to confirm that unplanned changes are, 
therefore, any changes not already documented in a railroad's PTCSP. 
FRA confirms that APTA's interpretation is correct. As FRA received 
only the two above comments on new paragraph (m)(2)(i), this final rule 
adopts that paragraph as proposed.
    New paragraph (m)(2)(ii) requires the RFA to include a copy of any 
associated software release notes, which is critical for FRA to review 
and evaluate before one or more railroads deploy the upgraded software. 
A copy of the release notes is integral in conveying the actual changes 
to the PTC system, including any corrections, enhancements, or new 
features or functionality. FRA did not receive any comments on new 
paragraph (m)(2)(ii), as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting that 
paragraph without change.
    New paragraph (m)(2)(iii) requires the RFA to contain a 
confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant 
railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant 
railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take 
in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the 
host railroad's PTCSP. FRA did not receive any comments on new 
paragraph (m)(2)(iii), as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting that 
paragraph without change.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed that paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would require 
the RFA to include a statement from the host railroad's Chief Engineer 
and Chief Operating Officer (COO), or executive officers of similar 
qualifications, verifying that the PTC system, once modified, would 
meet all technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, 
provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC 
system, and not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant 
railroads.
    In their joint comments regarding proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv), 
AAR and ASLRRA recommend the following: ``Instead of requiring hollow 
paperwork, the railroads instead propose that RFA submissions identify 
a designated and knowledgeable railroad contact who will be responsible 
for responding to FRA questions or requests for additional information, 
if any, and who will be able to do so quickly, completely, and 
authoritatively.'' AAR and ASLRRA's recommendation is based on several 
assertions, including that a verification statement from a railroad's 
Chief Engineer and COO was not required for railroad's initial PTCIP, 
PTCDP, or PTCSP, and it is unnecessary for RFAs, which are relatively 
less complex. In addition, AAR and ASLRRA assert that a railroad's 
Chief Engineer and COO are likely not PTC subject matter experts, and 
the highly technical changes described in an RFA would not be within 
their purview. Accordingly, a Chief Engineer and COO would be relying 
on the representations of their staff about the safety impact of the 
amendments proposed in the RFA, so the proposed statement would not 
serve a useful purpose.
    In response to AAR and ASLRRA's recommendation, FRA is modifying 
new paragraph (m)(2)(iv) in the final rule. As FRA proposed in the 
NPRM, this final rule will still require an RFA to include a statement 
from the respective host railroad that the modified PTC system (if the 
proposed changes were implemented) would meet all technical 
requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent or 
greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely 
impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. This is consistent 
with existing regulatory provisions that require PTC systems to achieve 
and maintain a level of safety, for each system modification, that is 
equal to or greater than the level of safety provided by the previous 
PTC system.\32\ However, based on comments received, FRA is eliminating 
all references to a host railroad's Chief Engineer and COO (or 
executive officers of similar qualifications) and instead specifying 
that this statement must be from a qualified representative of the host 
railroad. FRA expects this representative to be a management-level 
person with technical oversight of the railroad's PTC division. To AAR 
and ASLRRA's point, that representative will be the first person whom 
FRA contacts with any questions. Also, to be clear, the host railroad's 
representative must be an employee of the railroad, not a contractor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), 
236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New paragraph (m)(2)(v) requires a host railroad to submit any 
other information that FRA requests on a case-by-case basis, during 
FRA's review of the RFA. This approach is generally consistent with the 
existing provision under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in any 
case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, ``lacks adequate data 
regarding [the] safety impacts of the proposed changes, the Associate 
Administrator may request the necessary data from the applicant.''
    AAR and ASLRRA comment that this provision is unnecessary because 
existing Sec.  236.1021(d) already specifies that FRA can request 
information necessary to evaluate an RFA in appropriate circumstances. 
However, AAR and ASLRRA's comment fails to recognize that going 
forward, under this final rule, existing Sec.  236.1021(d) will apply 
only to RFAs to PTCIPs and PTCDPs, not RFAs to PTCSPs or PTC systems. 
FRA explains above that this final rule removes any references to RFAs 
to PTCSPs or PTC systems from existing paragraph (d), so existing 
paragraph (d) is no longer applicable to a host railroad's RFA to its 
PTCSP.\33\ Under this final rule, new paragraphs (l) and (m) will 
govern in this context, as they establish the process, including 
content requirements, for RFAs associated with FRA-approved PTCSPs and 
FRA-certified PTC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ AAR and ASLRRA's comments also assert that this type of 
catch-all provision renders FRA's burden estimates speculative. 
However, FRA's burden estimates are based on the full set of 
information that paragraph (m) requires RFAs to PTCSPs to contain, 
including any responses to FRA's possible requests for additional 
information on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate or necessary. As 
AAR and ASLRRA's comments acknowledge, this type of provision exists 
in current 49 CFR 236.1021(d), as well as other provisions not 
referenced, including 236.1015(f). FRA's requests for additional 
information in those contexts have been infrequent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, AAR and ASLRRA comment that this provision (paragraph 
(m)(2)(v)) is overbroad and creates the possibility of an open-ended 
process unlikely to be completed within FRA's 45-day decision timeline. 
As FRA noted in the NPRM, if FRA were to require a host railroad, or a 
set of host railroads, to provide additional information in support of 
the RFA, FRA's request will identify a deadline by which to submit the 
information, and FRA intends to send any such request via email to 
ensure an efficient process. If the reason for FRA's request is to have 
additional documentation on file for future reference, but that 
documentation will

[[Page 40162]]

not be essential to FRA's decision regarding the pending RFA, the 
deadline FRA specifies might be after the 45-day decision timeline. In 
this case, the applicable host railroads will receive FRA's decision 
(by the 45th day) and submit the additional information FRA requested 
by a specific deadline thereafter.
    Alternatively, if under the circumstances, FRA expects the 
additional information it requests will be integral to FRA's decision 
regarding the pending RFA, FRA will specify that the additional 
information must be submitted by, for example, the 20th day after the 
initial RFA filing. In this case, FRA will be required nonetheless to 
issue its decision within 45 days of the initial RFA filing, consistent 
with new paragraph (m)(3) below. FRA has considered AAR and ASLRRA's 
concerns about new paragraph (m)(2)(v), and FRA wants to clarify that 
this provision will not affect the 45-day deadline by which FRA must 
issue its decision, as new paragraph (m)(3) provides.
    The clock begins when a host railroad, or a group of host 
railroads, properly files an RFA with all required information pursuant 
to new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv) (i.e., all content 
requirements for an RFA, expect (m)(2)(v) which refers to any case-by-
case requests for additional information). To be clear, if an RFA fails 
to include any of the contents explicitly required for all RFAs to 
PTCSPs under new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv), the 45-day clock 
will not begin on that initial filing date. Instead, the 45-day clock 
will begin on the date the railroad or railroads properly submit any 
remaining information required under new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through 
(iv). FRA expects this will incentivize a railroad to submit a complete 
RFA, with all contents required under paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through 
(iv), in its initial filing.
    New paragraph (m)(3) outlines a definite, predictable timeline 
associated with FRA's review of an RFA to a host railroad's PTCSP or 
FRA-certified PTC system under paragraph (m). Specifically, paragraph 
(m)(3) prohibits a host railroad from making any changes, as defined 
under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or (4),\34\ to its PTC system until the 
Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems and Technology approves 
the RFA. In this final rule, new paragraph (m)(3)(i) specifies that FRA 
will review an RFA and issue a decision--i.e., an approval, conditional 
approval, or denial of the RFA--within 45 days of the date on which the 
complete RFA was filed under paragraph (m)(2). FRA's decision will be 
in the form of a letter from the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad 
Systems and Technology. As noted above, FRA will post each final 
decision letter in the respective railroad's PTC docket on http://www.regulations.gov. FRA, however, may send interim correspondence--
including any notices requiring a railroad to provide additional 
information under new paragraph (m)(2)(v)--via email, which will help 
ensure that process is efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ That is, proposed changes to safety-critical elements of 
PTC systems or proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the 
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it 
interoperates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA received multiple comments on new paragraph (m)(3)(i). In its 
comments, APTA recommends that FRA reduce the review-and-decision 
timeline from the proposed 45 days to, at most, 14 days. APTA's 
recommendation is based on its assertion that the industry has 
implemented at least four to five PTC onboard software releases, for I-
ETMS alone, over the last two years, and a 45-day review-and-decision 
period will constrain the industry's ability to continue at its current 
pace. AAR and ASLRRA's comments express concern that FRA may not be 
able to issue a decision within 45 days, and they recommend adding a 
provision wherein FRA may issue a summary approval of an RFA, with a 
more detailed rationale in a subsequent written decision. Like APTA's 
comments, AAR and ASLRRA's comments underscore the importance of host 
railroads receiving a timely decision so that safety improvements are 
not unnecessarily delayed.
    FRA appreciates these comments, but FRA declines to incorporate 
these specific recommendations into the final rule for the following 
reasons. Regarding AAR and ASLRRA's proposal, FRA expects that a 
provision allowing the agency to issue multiple decision letters, a 
brief decision letter and a complete decision letter (typically only 
two pages), could complicate the process and make it less efficient.
    As the industry is aware, FRA's regulations do not currently 
specify a timeline for FRA to review and approve or deny railroads' 
RFAs to their PTCSPs. In practice, as of May 2021, it has taken FRA 178 
days, on average, to review and approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-
certified PTC systems. One of FRA's main objectives in modifying Sec.  
236.1021 in this final rule is to establish a streamlined RFA process 
with a finite decision timeline to enable railroads to plan and 
schedule any material modifications, including upgrades, to their PTC 
systems. An FRA review-and-decision period of 45 days is significantly 
faster than FRA's current process, and this expedited timeline is based 
on FRA's interest in facilitating the industry's continual improvements 
to the reliability and operability of PTC technology. A period of 14 
days, as APTA suggests, would not provide sufficient time for FRA to 
review and evaluate an RFA (including a joint RFA impacting several 
railroads) and issue a decision letter. Accordingly, FRA's final rule 
adopts new paragraph (m)(3)(i), as proposed in the NPRM, without 
change.
    New paragraph (m)(3)(ii) explicitly acknowledges that FRA reserves 
the right to notify a railroad that it may proceed with making its 
proposed changes prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or 
under any other circumstances necessitating a railroad's immediate 
implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system. FRA did not 
receive any comments on new paragraph (m)(3)(ii), as proposed, and 
thus, FRA is adopting that paragraph without change.
    New paragraph (m)(3)(iii) specifies that FRA may require a railroad 
to modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, but only to the extent 
necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements under 
FRA's PTC regulations. FRA did not receive any comments on new 
paragraph (m)(3)(iii), as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting that 
paragraph without change.
    If FRA denies an RFA under paragraph (m), new paragraph (m)(3)(iv) 
specifies that each applicable railroad will be prohibited from making 
the proposed changes to its PTC system until the railroad both 
sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and concerns and 
obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with new paragraph (l) of this 
section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system, 
including the same certification classification under paragraph (e) of 
Sec.  236.1015, may submit information jointly to address FRA's 
questions, comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under 
this section. FRA did not receive any comments on new paragraph 
(m)(3)(iv), as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting that paragraph 
without change.
    FRA expects the improved process established in new Sec.  
236.1021(l) and (m) of this final rule will ensure FRA's review and 
decision timeline, regarding railroads' proposed changes to their FRA-
approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems, is predictable and 
consistent. FRA's improved process will also enable the industry to 
deploy upgrades and make technological advancements more efficiently.

[[Page 40163]]

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures

    Currently, paragraph (h) of this section requires railroads to 
report annually to FRA the number of PTC system failures that occurred 
during the previous calendar year. This final rule revises this 
existing paragraph to clarify and expand the reporting requirement and 
require host railroads to submit the information in a Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). FRA's Excel-based \35\ 
Form FRA F 6180.152 was placed in the docket for this rulemaking 
(Docket No. FRA-2019-0075) for reference and review on December 18, 
2020, when FRA published the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. 
All third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA received two comments on FRA's proposal to increase the 
frequency of this reporting requirement from annual to biannual. First, 
an individual commented that FRA should increase the frequency of this 
important reporting requirement to quarterly, as that frequency will 
help FRA more effectively determine if the reliability of PTC systems 
is trending upward or downward. Second, in its comments, APTA 
recommends keeping Sec.  236.1029(h) as an annual reporting 
requirement, noting that increasing the frequency to biannual may 
require each railroad to use additional resources to review and compile 
data on a more regular basis.
    FRA is adopting the biannual reporting frequency it proposed in the 
NPRM because that frequency balances FRA's need to oversee the 
reliability and performance of PTC systems actively throughout the 
year, with commuter railroads' stated preference for less frequent 
reporting. With respect to APTA's comment that increasing the reporting 
frequency from annual to biannual will require railroads to compile 
performance-related data more regularly, FRA accounts for that burden 
in its economic analysis in Section V (Regulatory Impact and Notices) 
of this final rule. However, FRA also understands that even under 
existing paragraph (h) (with an annual reporting deadline), host 
railroads regularly compile this data, not simply before the annual 
deadline, to evaluate their PTC systems' failure rates throughout the 
year.
    New paragraph (h)(1) specifies this reporting requirement applies 
to each host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236, 
subpart I, which also includes any new host railroads that become 
subject to the statutory mandate in the future and any host railroads 
that voluntarily implement a PTC system under subpart I.\36\ For 
clarification and simplicity, FRA is removing the phrase ``following 
the date of required PTC system implementation established by section 
20157 of title 49 of the United States Code'' from existing paragraph 
(h) because that phrase is unnecessary now that the final statutory 
deadline of December 31, 2020, has passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a ``railroad 
that elects to install a PTC system when not required to do so may 
elect to proceed under this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H 
of this part,'' including the associated filing and reporting 
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, new paragraph (h)(1) requires a host railroad to file 
its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 
electronically, which includes electronic filing on FRA's Secure 
Information Repository (https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads file 
other PTC-related documents, or another designated location. To the 
extent a railroad seeks confidential treatment of any part of its 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), the 
railroad must comply with the existing process and requirements under 
49 CFR 209.11, including proper labeling and redacting and providing a 
statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal 
authority claimed. FRA's new Form FRA F 6180.152 contains fields for a 
host railroad to identify its request for partial or full 
confidentiality and provide the required statement under Sec.  
209.11(c), if applicable.
    Also, under this final rule, paragraph (h)(1) requires a host 
railroad to include in its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) the metrics itemized under paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
through (vii) for the host railroad, each of its applicable tenant 
railroads (as explained in new paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its PTC-
governed track segments. In this paragraph, FRA acknowledges that a 
host railroad's PTCIP may identify or designate its specific track 
segments as territories, subdivisions, districts, main lines, branches, 
or corridors, based on a railroad's own naming conventions. FRA expects 
that requiring this relatively high-level geographical information 
(i.e., by track segment, not by milepost location) will still enable 
FRA to monitor trends in PTC system reliability throughout the country 
and focus its resources, for example, on any areas where PTC system 
failures are occurring at a high rate.
    Relatedly, FRA received one comment from an individual inquiring 
what FRA plans to do with the information railroads submit in their new 
biannual reports. The commenter states that, from his perspective, 
there is very little point in requiring railroads to submit such 
reports without FRA making a coincident commitment to producing high-
level summaries of the reports, analyses of trends, and recommendations 
based on that analysis. He further notes that compelling those 
interested in these reports to seek information through Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) petitions defeats the entire purpose of a public 
agency requiring such reporting, in his view.
    In response to the general inquiry in this individual's comment, 
FRA intends to use host railroads' Biannual Reports of PTC System 
Performance to evaluate, for example, the rate at which PTC systems are 
experiencing failures, including initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions, and trends in system reliability over time. In addition, 
these reports will help FRA prioritize its resources, including helping 
inform decisions about which railroads may benefit from additional 
technical assistance from FRA's PTC specialists. As a part of FRA's 
ongoing PTC oversight, the agency will evaluate the best way to 
continue its transparent reporting on PTC progress and challenges.
    Consistent with existing paragraph (h), new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
through (iii) require a host railroad's biannual report to include the 
number of PTC-related failures that occurred during the applicable 
reporting period, in addition to a numerical breakdown of the 
``failures by category, including but not limited to locomotive, 
wayside, communications, and back office system failures.'' \37\ In new 
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii), however, FRA acknowledges that the 
source or cause of a PTC system failure might not necessarily involve, 
in every instance, the PTC system itself, so this final rule includes 
an additional category for railroads to select in the applicable drop-
down menu in Form FRA F 6180.152--i.e., ``a non-PTC component.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Quoting existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another difference between the existing paragraph (h) and FRA's new 
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that the final rule utilizes the 
statutory terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) as referenced above--
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--which are now 
defined under paragraph

[[Page 40164]]

(b) of Sec.  236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads track their PTC 
system failures in this manner (by type of failure), given the existing 
temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and FRA's 
associated mandatory form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553). FRA did not 
receive any comments on new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii), as 
proposed, and this final rule adopts these proposed paragraphs from the 
NPRM, without change.
    In the NPRM, FRA also proposed to expand the existing reporting 
requirement under paragraph (h) to encompass certain positive, 
performance-related information, as otherwise the information FRA 
receives would be about PTC system failures only. Specifically, FRA 
proposed that new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require a host railroad to 
identify the number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any 
other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or 
incident on the host railroad's PTC-governed main lines, during the 
applicable reporting period.
    FRA received extensive comments on this proposal, including from 
AAR, ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT. FRA addresses the general comments 
about paragraph (h)(1)(iv) immediately below. FRA responds to the 
related ACSES II-specific comments later in this section when 
discussing new paragraph (h)(5).
    AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA each comment that the proposed metric, 
``intended enforcements,'' is a subjective and unreliable data point. 
They note that enforcements by a PTC system, whether intended or not, 
indicate the system is working. Both APTA and Amtrak recommend removing 
this metric from the final rule in its entirety. FRA declines APTA's 
and Amtrak's recommendation to eliminate this metric because if FRA 
were to do so, host railroads' Biannual Reports of PTC System 
Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) would not include any positive data 
about their PTC systems' performance.
    AAR and ASLRRA, on the other hand, recommend that FRA refine the 
metric to be more objective by removing the adjective ``intended'' and 
retaining the term ``enforcements.'' AAR and ASLRRA explain that this 
metric is far less subjective and will result in a more easily 
normalized metric to compare to railroads' other data. They further 
observe that this metric--i.e., enforcements in general--would avoid 
cost and resource burdens, which railroads would bear if they needed to 
analyze individual enforcements to determine whether to classify them 
as intended. FRA concurs with AAR and ASLRRA's analysis and, in this 
final rule, under new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA adopts AAR and ASLRRA's 
joint recommendation to require host railroads to identify the total 
number of all enforcements by the PTC system during the applicable 
reporting period, whether the enforcements were intended or not.
    FRA interprets the term ``enforcement'' in new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) 
consistently with how the term ``enforce'' is applied in FRA's existing 
PTC regulations, which include references to, among other things, how a 
PTC system shall enforce speeds, movement authorities, and signal 
indications. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 236.1013, 236.1015, and 
236.1047(a)(3). FRA expects that new paragraph (h)(1)(iv)--focusing on 
enforcements by a PTC system in general--will provide valuable 
performance-related data, while avoiding the issues APTA, AAR, and 
ASLRRA raise regarding the NPRM's more subjective, resource-intensive 
proposal to report only intended enforcements.
    Furthermore, based on comments from AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA, FRA 
recognizes that its initial proposal for paragraph (h)(1)(iv) also 
created confusion. In the NPRM, FRA proposed that paragraph (h)(1)(iv) 
would require a host railroad to identify the number of intended 
enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC 
system prevented an accident or incident on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines, during the applicable reporting period. Several 
comments demonstrate that some people interpreted that proposed content 
requirement as referring to one connected data point, but it was 
proposing two separate data points, distinguished by the word ``and.''
    Specifically, under proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), the NPRM 
proposed to require railroads to identify: (1) The number of intended 
enforcements by the PTC system (discussed above); and (2) any other 
instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or incident on 
a host railroad's PTC-governed main lines. Highlighting the confusion 
about these two separate elements, several comments from AAR, ASLRRA, 
and APTA assert that it is often impossible to determine if an intended 
PTC enforcement definitively prevented an accident or not.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In the preceding paragraphs, FRA explains why this final 
rule eliminates the word ``intended'' from new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), 
based on AAR and ASLRRA's joint comments and APTA's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA maintains that the second metric referenced in paragraph 
(h)(1)(iv) of the NPRM--i.e., the number of instances in which the PTC 
system prevented an accident or incident--is necessary to enable FRA to 
evaluate and quantify PTC technology's positive impact on rail safety. 
This second metric is a subset of the first metric (the total number of 
enforcements by the PTC system). FRA understands that a PTC system 
taking enforcement action does not necessarily mean that, in every 
case, an accident or incident was prevented, for several reasons. 
First, there may be cases when a PTC system unnecessarily initiates a 
brake application (an unintended enforcement), meaning the system, for 
some reason, took enforcement action when it was not warranted. Second, 
there may be cases when a PTC system properly takes enforcement action, 
but an accident or incident would not have occurred even if the PTC 
system did not take enforcement action. For example, a PTC system might 
take enforcement action properly to prevent a train from passing a red 
signal, but in this hypothetical, there was no chance of a train-to-
train collision under the specific circumstances because the main 
line's train schedule was such that only one train operates in that 
area each day. Although the PTC system properly took enforcement 
action, that specific enforcement by the PTC system did not actually 
prevent an accident or incident, as an accident or incident would not 
have necessarily occurred otherwise.
    For clarity about these two data points, this final rule 
recategorizes this second metric (the subset of enforcements that 
prevented an accident or incident) as a separate content requirement, 
under new paragraph (h)(1)(v). Specifically, new paragraph (h)(1)(v) 
requires a railroad to identify the number of enforcements by the PTC 
system in which an accident or incident was prevented, as discussed 
further below. Such a data point will help demonstrate the extent to 
which PTC systems are performing as designed and improving safety, by 
highlighting concrete instances in which enforcement by the PTC system 
actually prevented a train-to-train collision, over-speed derailment, 
incursion into an established work zone, or movement of a train through 
a switch left in the wrong position.
    In their comments, AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA raise concerns that this 
metric relies on speculation and subjective assessments. For example, 
in their comments, they assert that a PTC

[[Page 40165]]

system might have prevented only a close call,\39\ or in the absence of 
a PTC system, a train crew might have taken subsequent action that 
would have prevented the accident. In response to these comments, FRA 
wishes to clarify the purpose and scope of new paragraph (h)(1)(v). 
This metric focuses on only specific, undisputed instances in which a 
PTC system actually prevented an accident or incident, as defined under 
49 CFR 225.5. In other words, host railroads should report, under 
paragraph (h)(1)(v), only the subset of PTC system enforcements where 
an accident or incident would have occurred under the exact 
circumstances, but for the intervention of the PTC system. For example, 
host railroads should count the following types of scenarios: A PTC 
system prevented a train from traveling into a siding and colliding 
with a train occupying the siding, or a PTC system prevented a train 
from moving past a red signal, where another train was occupying the 
track. These are only two examples of instances where a foreseeable 
accident or incident would have occurred, but for the PTC system's 
intervention. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to convey that paragraph (h)(1)(v) is focused on undisputed 
scenarios where an accident or incident would have otherwise occurred 
under the exact circumstances, as opposed to scenarios where there was 
only a chance of an accident or incident occurring if the facts or 
circumstances were changed or exacerbated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ FRA expects that APTA, AAR, and ASLRRA's use of the phrase 
``only close calls'' refers to close calls in general, where an 
accident or incident did not occur but might have under different 
circumstances. The industry might also be referring to the types of 
close calls that can be reported under the Confidential Close Call 
Reporting System (C\3\RS). Under C\3\RS, a close call is ``any 
condition or event that may have the potential for more serious 
safety consequences. Some examples of close calls could be, but not 
limited to, a train missing a temporary speed restriction, a train 
striking a derail without derailing, a blue flag not removed after 
releasing equipment, or proper track protection not provided during 
track maintenance.'' The National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, C\3\RS Frequently Asked Questions (2015), available 
at https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/C3RS_FAQ.pdf. Based on this 
definition and the general meaning of the term, FRA expects that 
close calls encompass a broader universe of scenarios than the fact-
specific scenarios under new paragraph Sec.  236.1029(h)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of statistics this final rule requires railroads to 
provide, under new paragraphs (h)(1)(iv) and (v), will help demonstrate 
the extent to which PTC systems are meeting their desired objectives.
    In new paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii), FRA requires a host 
railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) to include certain contextual data to help FRA understand how 
the occurrences of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines.\40\ Paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) generally 
encompass the same types of denominators currently set forth in the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) 
with one notable difference. Unlike Form FRA F 6180.177, this final 
rule requires the same two data points, under new paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) 
and (vii), from a host railroad and its applicable tenant railroads. In 
practice, FRA has found that host railroads providing certain 
denominators for tenant railroads and other denominators for the host 
railroad itself makes it difficult for FRA to evaluate the rate at 
which failures are occurring system-wide. FRA expects that requiring 
uniform figures will help the agency derive more accurate, objective, 
and comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA understands that host 
railroads collect the type of data under paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and 
(vii) for their own operations and their tenant railroads' operations 
because several host railroads have provided those additional data 
points in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures (Form 
FRA F 6180.177) to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ FRA's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) includes fields for host railroads to provide the raw 
denominators set forth under paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) through (vii), 
and FRA will calculate the rate of failures, utilizing those raw 
denominators. FRA has found that providing fields for railroads to 
enter such raw denominators, instead of percentages or rates, helps 
FRA accurately interpret railroads' data, especially when comparing 
multiple railroads' data or a single railroad's data to its own 
prior reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, new paragraph (h)(1)(vi) requires a host railroad's 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to 
include the number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC 
system during the applicable reporting period, which will help FRA 
calculate the actual rate of that railroad's PTC system initialization 
failures.\41\ FRA did not receive any comments on this paragraph, and 
this final rule adopts this paragraph, as proposed in the NPRM, without 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ As a note, in the NPRM, FRA categorized this content 
requirement under proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v). In this final rule, 
FRA categorizes this content requirement (the number of scheduled 
attempts at initialization of the PTC system) as new paragraph 
(h)(1)(vi), as (h)(1)(v) sets forth the content requirement about 
the number of specific instances in which a PTC system prevented an 
accident or incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, under formerly proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vi), FRA also 
proposed to require a host railroad to identify the number of trains 
governed by the PTC system during the applicable reporting period, in 
its biannual report. FRA is eliminating this proposed content 
requirement in this final rule based on comments from AAR and ASLRRA 
explaining that this proposal would not result in objective data. AAR 
and ASLRRA note that different railroads use different metrics to 
identify and define ``trains'' (e.g., crew starts, brake tests, the 
addition or subtraction of portions of a train, interchanges between 
railroads with re-crews, etc.). Their comments further explain that the 
number of trains involved in a geographic movement may vary 
considerably by railroad, creating the potential for inconsistency and 
data that cannot be compared reliably. FRA concurs with these comments 
and, therefore, FRA's final rule does not adopt that proposed content 
requirement from the NPRM.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For clarity, FRA notes that the citation of this proposed 
paragraph in the NPRM was (h)(1)(vi). New paragraph (h)(1)(vi) in 
this final rule concerns the number of scheduled attempts at 
initialization of the PTC system, which was proposed paragraph 
(h)(1)(v) in the NPRM. Given FRA's decision to separate the two 
elements of proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv) in the NPRM (into 
(h)(1)(iv) and (v) in the final rule), paragraph (h)(1) in the final 
rule includes the same number of paragraphs (i.e., (i) to (vii)) as 
the NPRM, even though this final rule does not adopt one of the 
proposed content requirements from the NPRM, based on AAR and 
ASLRRA's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New paragraph (h)(1)(vii), as proposed in the NPRM, requires a host 
railroad to provide the number of train miles governed by the PTC 
system during the applicable reporting period, in its biannual report. 
In their comments, AAR and ASLRRA express support for this metric, 
noting that it is not subject to variation across railroads, and there 
is little potential for inconsistency. From AAR and ASLRRA's 
perspective, the metric of PTC train miles provides the clearest and 
most easily understood method for statistical normalization when 
calculating PTC system reliability. As this is the only comment FRA 
received regarding paragraph (h)(1)(vii) and FRA concurs with AAR and 
ASLRRA's analysis, FRA's final rule adopts that new paragraph as 
proposed in the NPRM.
    Finally, with respect to paragraph (h)(1) in general, an individual 
commented that FRA should require railroads to submit the following 
additional data in their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152): ``Any reports from hardware or software 
suppliers or vendors under Sec.  263.1023(b) about

[[Page 40166]]

software failures or reported vulnerabilities.'' FRA declines to adopt 
this recommendation in the final rule because FRA already receives such 
reports on an ongoing basis. For example, pursuant to Sec.  
236.1023(h), PTC system suppliers and vendors must notify FRA directly 
of any safety-relevant failure, defective condition, or previously 
unidentified hazard discovered by the supplier or vendor and the 
identity of each affected and notified railroad. Furthermore, pursuant 
to the instructions under Sec.  236.1023(f), suppliers, vendors, and 
railroads must submit such reports to FRA within 15 days of discovering 
the reportable issue. Therefore, FRA does not consider it necessary for 
host railroads to identify such reports in their Biannual Reports of 
PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), as FRA already receives 
those reports within 15 days, depending on the circumstances, directly 
from suppliers, vendors, and railroads, as Sec.  236.1023 requires.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new paragraph (h)(2) would require a 
host railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) to include a summary of any actions the host railroad and its 
tenant railroads are taking to improve the performance and reliability 
of the PTC system continually. In their comments, AAR and ASLRRA state 
that information regarding PTC system improvements is not related to 
biannual failure statistics, and any such summary should be optional. 
Based on AAR and ASLRRA's comment, FRA is rewording the content 
requirement under new paragraph (h)(2) to clarify the scope and purpose 
of this type of summary and its relation to the biannual failure 
statistics. Specifically, new paragraph (h)(2) will require a host 
railroad's biannual report to include a summary of any actions the host 
railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to reduce the frequency 
and rate of initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions, such 
as any actions to correct or eliminate systemic issues and specific 
problems.
    In other words, this narrative section will provide railroads an 
opportunity to explain briefly the steps they are taking to reduce the 
occurrence of PTC system failures, which could help put the biannual 
statistics into perspective. FRA did not propose including this content 
requirement under paragraph (h)(1) because that paragraph is track 
segment-specific, and FRA acknowledges that railroads generally take a 
system-wide approach to improving the reliability and performance of 
their PTC systems. Accordingly, consistent with the NPRM, this final 
rule categorizes this content requirement in the separate paragraph 
(h)(2), and FRA's Excel-based Form FRA F 6180.152 contains a field for 
railroads to enter this summary.
    In the NPRM, FRA outlined, under proposed paragraph (h)(3), the 
dates by which host railroads must submit their Biannual Reports of PTC 
System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA--i.e., by July 31 
(covering the period from January 1 to June 30), and by January 31 
(covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar 
year). In its comments, APTA notes that it is reasonable for FRA to 
require submission of this data sooner than the current deadline. As a 
reminder, the current annual filing deadline under existing paragraph 
(h) is April 16th. Under the existing framework, FRA must wait until 
April 16th each year to receive railroads' failure-related data from 
the prior calendar year--data which is quite outdated by the time it is 
filed.
    Though APTA agrees that requiring earlier submission of the data is 
reasonable, APTA asserts that filing the data about 30 days after the 
reporting period ends might be insufficient to process and compile the 
data. APTA recommends that the reporting deadline should be ``within 45 
days of the reporting period.'' However, FRA expects that providing 
railroads one full month (from the end of the half-year period) to 
complete Form FRA 6180.152 will be sufficient and reasonable, given 
railroads' experience, since 2016, in submitting their Quarterly PTC 
Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one month after the end of the 
quarter. Furthermore, under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC 
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4), the due date for each monthly notification is currently 
the 15th of the following month--so, for example, the notification 
regarding initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions during 
December 2020 was due by January 15, 2021. At least in part due to this 
temporary reporting requirement, which expires December 31, 2021, FRA 
expects that by the time this final rule becomes effective, host 
railroads will be experienced in regularly tracking the performance of 
their PTC systems. In fact, they are currently required to submit the 
data more quickly, within 15 days of the end of each month.
    Accordingly, FRA expects that allowing one full month for railroads 
to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) under new paragraph (h)(3) is a reasonable 
timeframe for this permanent reporting requirement. FRA did not receive 
any other comments about new paragraph (h)(3) and the reporting 
deadline therein, and this final rule adopts the proposal in the NPRM 
without change.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new paragraph (h)(4) would 
explicitly require any applicable tenant railroads that operate on a 
host railroad's PTC-governed main line(s) to provide the necessary data 
to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the 
biannual filing deadlines--i.e., by July 15 (for the biannual report 
covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for 
the biannual report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of 
the prior calendar year).
    In their comments, AAR and ASLRRA explain that railroads have 
already established an efficient process to collect tenant railroads' 
data, and FRA should leave it to the host and tenant railroads to 
determine the most effective way to coordinate regarding tenant 
railroads' PTC-related failures. AAR and ASLRRA also remark that the 
deadlines specified in proposed paragraph (h)(4) of the NPRM may not 
allow adequate time for a host railroad to investigate a tenant 
railroad's failures and capture them in the host railroad's Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). They further 
note that, in practice, communications between host and tenant 
railroads may need to occur much earlier and on a continuous basis 
throughout a reporting period. Accordingly, AAR and ASLRRA recommend 
that FRA delete this proposal in the final rule, arguing it is 
unnecessary.
    As background, FRA's proposed paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant 
railroad responsibilities was based, in part, on comments AAR and APTA 
previously submitted during the comment period associated with the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 
Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR commented, ``[i]f FRA is going 
to require hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear 
and direct requirement on tenants to report the desired information to 
their host railroad.'' \43\ In APTA's comments, also dated February 28, 
2020, APTA observed that a host railroad would need to obtain ``all 
necessary logs to complete the analyses'' from its tenant railroads to 
complete Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Docket Nos. FRA-2019-0004-N-20 and FRA-2020-0004-N-3; 85 FR 
15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \44\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 40167]]

    However, based on AAR and ASLRRA's subsequent comments, dated 
February 16, 2021, on the NPRM, FRA can appreciate that specifying an 
exact deadline by which a tenant railroad must submit the pertinent 
data to its applicable host railroads could have the unintended 
consequence of constraining otherwise effective coordination between 
host and tenant railroads. For example, as AAR and ASLRRA recognize, 
certain host railroads might prefer to receive that data by an earlier 
date or on a continuous basis. Therefore, in this final rule, FRA is 
removing all references in new paragraph (h)(4) to specific dates by 
which tenant railroads must provide the data to their applicable host 
railroads.
    Instead, new paragraph (h)(4) establishes a general requirement for 
each applicable tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main line(s) to provide the information required under 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) to each applicable host railroad, without 
imposing a date-specific deadline. Consistent with the NPRM, the text 
in paragraph (h)(4) clarifies that a host railroad does not need to 
include data in Form FRA F 6180.152 regarding a tenant railroad that is 
subject to an exception under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the 
applicable reporting period because such a tenant railroad's movements 
would not be governed by PTC technology in that case, and there would 
not be any pertinent, performance-related data to submit regarding that 
tenant railroad.
    In addition, new paragraph (h)(4) requires the applicable tenant 
railroads to provide the necessary data to each applicable host 
railroad on a continuous basis. FRA based this clause on AAR and 
ASLRRA's recommendation that FRA defer to host and tenant railroads to 
coordinate and determine effective timelines for the exchange of this 
information. FRA also recognizes that this provision must refer, at 
least minimally, to a timeframe. Otherwise, it would be difficult or 
impossible for FRA to take enforcement action against a tenant 
railroad, if necessary, for failing to submit the necessary data to its 
host railroad to facilitate the host railroad's timely submission of 
its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 
The language in new paragraph (h)(4) of this final rule requires tenant 
railroads to provide certain data to their host railroads, without 
unnecessarily interfering with host and tenant railroads' existing 
processes for coordination and data-sharing.
    Finally, new paragraph (h)(5) provides temporary regulatory relief 
to railroads utilizing ACSES II or ASES II (referred to hereinafter as 
ACSES II). This new provision is in response to extensive comments from 
AAR, ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT regarding new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) 
of this final rule. In their respective comments, AAR, ASLRRA, APTA, 
Amtrak, and NJT express concern that one metric (the number of 
enforcements by the PTC system) could impose a significant burden on 
railroads operating ACSES II because almost all ACSES II railroads need 
to obtain that data manually, based on that system's current 
capabilities or configuration. For example, Amtrak's comments summarize 
the issue in the following manner: ``The ACSES system does not 
currently have the technical capability to automatically take 
enforcement data which is stored in a locomotive's on-board computer, 
and to transmit that data . . . to a centralized collection and 
analysis location.''
    Amtrak's and APTA's comments each assert that this specific content 
requirement would create a tremendous strain on the resources of host 
railroads that operate ACSES II. Similarly, NJT notes that this 
requirement is especially onerous for railroads that utilize this type 
of PTC technology. Both Amtrak's comments and AAR and ASLRRA's comments 
describe the following burden estimate: An employee would manually 
perform a locomotive download by connecting a laptop to that engine (an 
approximately 20-minute process for each locomotive in the fleet), and 
then it would take approximately 30 minutes to process and analyze the 
data from each locomotive. Amtrak, AAR, and ASLRRA assert that this 
process would occur every 48 hours, but they do not specify why. FRA 
expects that their estimated frequency of performing downloads might be 
due to ACSES II's current onboard memory or storage limitations.
    In their respective comments, APTA and Amtrak recommend removing 
the content requirement under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) from the final rule. 
On the other hand, AAR and ASLRRA \45\ recommend that FRA amend the 
proposal after consulting with ACSES II railroads regarding a more 
feasible manner for those railroads to compile the enforcement-related 
metric. From comments received and FRA's experience overseeing PTC 
technology, FRA understands that this concern about paragraph 
(h)(1)(iv) (i.e., the number of enforcements by the PTC system) and the 
manual process to collect such data is specific only to some railroads 
utilizing ACSES II, and it does not implicate other types of PTC 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In addition, NJT comments that it strongly supports AAR and 
ASLRRA's joint comments, in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, FRA recognizes that the comments from Amtrak, AAR, and 
ASLRRA emphasize that ``nearly all'' or ``most'' ACSES II host 
railroads currently obtain such data manually. There are currently 
seven host railroads that utilize ACSES II. Based on host railroads' 
PTCSPs and other discussions, FRA is aware that at least one ACSES II 
host railroad currently utilizes an automated tool that remotely 
collects and analyzes data from the PTC system, including enforcements 
by the PTC system (the metric under paragraph (h)(1)(iv)) and the 
performance of various wayside equipment. This is important to 
underscore because it suggests to FRA that the other six ACSES II host 
railroads could likewise, over time, explore options or tools for 
obtaining their enforcement-related data remotely (i.e., without 
manually performing a locomotive download while connected to each 
locomotive).
    In addition to the tool one ACSES II host railroad is currently 
utilizing, FRA is aware that other automated options are available to 
collect the type of data under paragraph (h)(1)(iv). For example, FRA 
knows of at least one PTC system supplier with a software solution or 
tool that, among other capabilities, automatically generates reports 
regarding PTC technology's performance and functioning, including 
enforcements by the PTC system.
    FRA declines to eliminate paragraph (h)(1)(iv) from the final rule, 
as the number of enforcements by a PTC system is an integral metric 
about PTC technology's performance.\46\ Notably, no other alternatives 
were suggested by any commenter. Nonetheless, FRA's final rule 
recognizes that currently, six of the 35 applicable host railroads 
would likely need to collect this metric manually in the near term. To 
avoid imposing a significant burden on those railroads, this final 
rule, under new paragraph (h)(5), provides temporary relief from the 
content requirement under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to any railroad 
operating a PTC system

[[Page 40168]]

classified under FRA Type Approval Nos. FRA-TA-2010-001 (ACSES II) or 
FRA-TA-2013-003 (ASES II).\47\ Specifically, those railroads must begin 
submitting the specific metric required under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) not 
later than January 31, 2023. ACSES II and ASES II host railroads may 
certainly begin submitting that metric in their Biannual Reports of PTC 
System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) before January 31, 2023, but 
this provision offers flexibility to those railroads in the short term, 
based on comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Furthermore, FRA expects that the number of enforcements by 
a PTC system during a reporting period is important information from 
a railroad's perspective, for other purposes as well. For example, 
that data could inform a railroad about the specific events when its 
PTC system needed to initiate braking events, and help the railroad 
identify general train handling issues and opportunities for 
increased training.
    \47\ FRA understands that certain host railroads' ACSES II 
systems are also classified under additional FRA Type Approvals, due 
to certain FRA-approved system variances. However, for this purpose, 
FRA is referring to the primary, underlying ACSES II and ASES II FRA 
Type Approvals, which all applicable ACSES II host railroads 
utilize, at least in part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be clear, this relief applies to the single content requirement 
under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) only, and these railroads must provide all 
other data required under paragraph (h) in their Biannual Reports of 
PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), once this final rule is 
effective. Between publication of this final rule and January 31, 2023, 
FRA will consult with the six applicable ACSES II railroads to help 
identify more feasible data collection approaches, consistent with the 
recommendation from AAR, ASLRRA, and NJT. In general, FRA expects 
paragraph (h)(5) will provide the six applicable ACSES II host 
railroads sufficient time either to refine and expedite their manual 
processes or to adopt a more automated process, with respect to 
paragraph (h)(1)(iv).
    On a separate topic and as noted above, existing Sec.  236.1029(h) 
currently requires railroads, by April 16th each year, to submit an 
annual report of the number of PTC system failures that occurred during 
the previous calendar year. In their comments, APTA, AAR, and ASLRRA 
request that FRA exercise discretion with respect to the annual report 
due April 16, 2021, pursuant to existing paragraph (h). Specifically, 
APTA suggests that railroads should submit the required data from a 
limited period (from June 2020 to December 2020), instead of calendar 
year 2020, as existing paragraph (h) requires. AAR and ASLRRA request 
that FRA accept a compilation of data from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 
2021, to satisfy the annual reporting requirement due April 16, 2021. 
FRA appreciates these comments, but declines these recommendations. FRA 
is not providing retroactive regulatory relief via this rulemaking. 
Existing Sec.  236.1029(h) currently governs, and FRA's changes to 
paragraph (h) will be effective after this final rule is published.
    In addition, AAR and ASLRRA recommend that once this final rule is 
effective, the new Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 
F 6180.152) under revised paragraph (h) should replace the temporary 
reporting requirement FRA adopted in 2020. FRA declines this 
recommendation, as it is not legally permissible. AAR and ASLRRA are 
referring to the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form 
FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553), which implements the 
statutory reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). That 
separate reporting requirement remains in place, by statute, until 
December 31, 2021.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). For additional information about this 
temporary statutory reporting requirement, please see Section III-B 
(Expanding the Performance-related Reporting Requirements) in this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This final rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' \49\ FRA 
made this determination by finding that the economic effects of this 
regulatory action will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold 
defined by Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule will reduce the burden on railroads while improving 
railroad safety. Specifically, in addition to the benefits quantified 
in the Industry Business Benefits section below, FRA expects this final 
rule will result in safety benefits for the railroad industry. For 
example, the expedited RFA process in this final rule will accelerate 
railroads' ability to update their FRA-certified PTC systems to ensure 
safe operations (e.g., through ongoing, necessary maintenance) and 
enhance the technology (e.g., by adding new functionality or improving 
a PTC system's reliability and operability). In short, this final rule 
will enable railroads to deploy safety improvements and technological 
advancements more efficiently and frequently. In addition, the expanded 
reporting requirement will help railroads and FRA identify systemic 
failures more quickly and precisely, enabling swifter intervention and 
resolution.
    To enable FRA to oversee the performance and reliability of 
railroads' PTC systems effectively, FRA is revising the reporting 
requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h). FRA's changes include, but are 
not limited to, increasing the reporting frequency from annual to 
biannual, clarifying the types of statistics and information the 
reports must include, and expanding the reporting requirement to 
encompass positive performance-related information. Accordingly, FRA 
estimates that the number of hours it will take a host railroad to 
report the required information under Sec.  236.1029(h) will increase 
under this final rule. To provide clarity and precision regarding the 
reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA developed an Excel-
based Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 
that railroads must utilize to satisfy this reporting requirement.
    While FRA is expanding this existing reporting requirement, FRA's 
final rule reduces the regulatory and administrative burden on host 
railroads under Sec.  236.1021. Specifically, FRA is establishing a 
streamlined process to enable the railroad industry to make 
technological advancements to FRA-certified PTC systems more 
efficiently. Instead of the existing RFA approval process under Sec.  
236.1021 for FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems, FRA's 
final rule: (1) Requires host railroads to comply with a streamlined 
process, including a concise RFA; and (2) establishes a 45-day FRA 
decision deadline. This more efficient process will result in business 
benefits for host railroads and savings for the government. For 
example, FRA's simplification of the content requirements associated 
with an RFA to a PTCSP under Sec.  236.1021 will reduce the number of 
burden hours per RFA. In addition, FRA is permitting host railroads 
that utilize the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their 
PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of RFAs railroads must 
submit in the future.
    Currently, 35 host railroads must submit RFAs before making certain 
changes to their PTCSPs and PTC systems under Sec.  236.1021, with many 
host railroads projected to submit one or two RFAs per year. Over the 
next ten years, FRA expects there will be an average increase of 1.5 
new PTC-governed host railroads per year, beginning in the second year, 
for a total of approximately 14 additional host railroads. Table A 
summarizes the types of PTC systems the 35 PTC-mandated host railroads 
implemented, as of 2020, and the approximate number of RFAs host 
railroads would file under FRA's

[[Page 40169]]

existing regulations, without this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Several host railroads have implemented multiple types of 
PTC systems.

                   Table A--Estimated Number of Required RFAs to PTCSPs by Type of PTC System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PTC systems being
                                                                implemented by    Annual  number   Total  number
                     Type of PTC system                      host railroads  (as   of  RFAs per      of  RFAs
                                                                 of 2020) 50        PTC system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II...................................................                    8               1               8
CBTC.......................................................                    1               1               1
E-ATC......................................................                    5               1               5
ITCS.......................................................                    1               1               1
I-ETMS.....................................................                   26               2              52
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................................                   41  ..............              67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, without this final rule, FRA estimates the 35 host 
railroads would need to submit approximately 67 RFAs annually given the 
types of changes the industry intends to make to their PTC systems each 
year under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4) in the future.\51\ FRA estimates 
that the current hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA (without this final 
rule), based on previously approved PTC Information Collection Requests 
(ICRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on average, 
approximately 10 RFAs to railroads' PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each 
year. However, from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, FRA 
found the estimate did not account adequately for the number of RFAs 
host railroads intend to submit to their PTCSPs annually under Sec.  
236.1021(h)(3)-(4) without the final rule. Tables A, B, and F in 
this final rule estimate more accurately the approximate average 
number of RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each year 
under the existing regulations and under the final rule. See 84 FR 
72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table B below provides the current hourly burden and costs that 
host railroads face when submitting RFAs to their PTCSPs under the 
existing Sec.  236.1021.

                    Table B--Current Host Railroad Hourly Burden and Cost for RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Hour burden per    Total  annual
            Year                Submissions       submission           cost          7-Percent       3-Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................              67                160         $830,505        $830,505        $830,505
2...........................              69                160          855,296         799,342         830,385
3...........................              70                160          867,692         757,876         817,883
4...........................              72                160          892,483         728,532         816,749
5...........................              73                160          904,879         690,328         803,973
6...........................              75                160          929,670         662,842         801,942
7...........................              76                160          942,066         627,738         788,965
8...........................              78                160          966,857         602,110         786,143
9...........................              79                160          979,252         569,934         773,031
10..........................              81                160        1,004,044         546,133         769,516
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................             740  .................        9,172,744       6,815,340       8,019,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    As described above, FRA is also amending the reporting requirement 
under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by increasing the frequency from annual to 
biannual, clarifying the types of statistics and information the 
reports must include, and expanding the reporting requirement to 
encompass positive performance-related information. Though FRA's final 
rule will increase the number of required submissions, as well as the 
hourly burden per submission, FRA estimates the new costs will be 
offset by the business benefits derived from the final rule's changes 
as presented in the Business Benefits section below.
    To clarify the information FRA is requiring host railroads to 
submit under Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA created an Excel-based form for the 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). This 
form incorporates the information currently required under Sec.  
236.1029(h) and the additional types of information specified in this 
final rule. Host railroads with FRA-certified PTC systems are generally 
experienced in compiling this type of information, given the 
corresponding reporting requirements under the temporary Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control 
No. 2130-0553).
    During the comment period for the NPRM, FRA received a general 
request from APTA on behalf of the commuter rail industry. APTA 
requests that FRA review its cost-benefit analysis associated with the 
changes to Sec.  236.1029(h) proposed in the NPRM, including 
establishing the Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152). Based on comments received, FRA reviewed and updated its 
burden estimate associated with expanding the reporting requirement 
under Sec.  236.1029(h). The table below displays FRA's updated 
estimate of the burden associated with Sec.  236.1029(h). Please note 
that the increased burden estimate is based on FRA's review of its 
proposed revisions to Sec.  236.1029(h) based on comments received, and 
not on any substantial changes in Sec.  236.1029(h) from the NPRM to 
the final rule.

[[Page 40170]]



                Estimate Changes From NPRM to Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final rule
               Description                 NPRM  (hours)      (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (First Three               12              48
 Years).................................
Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (After Three               10              28
 Years).................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hourly burden associated with submitting the information 
required under Sec.  236.1029(h) will increase initially from 8 hours 
per report (without the final rule) to 48 hours per report (with the 
final rule), on average. FRA estimates that, over time, railroads will 
develop processes that will decrease the reporting burden from 48 hours 
per submission to 28 hours per submission. FRA assumes this decrease 
will begin in the fourth year of the analysis as host railroads become 
more familiar with the Excel-based form and as they develop processes 
to improve their data collection and reporting. FRA did not receive any 
comments that dispute FRA's assumption that railroads will refine and 
expedite their reporting processes over time.
    This analysis accounts for the marginal increase of 40 hours for 
the first three years of a host railroad reporting and 20 hours for 
each subsequent year, as compared to the 8-hour burden estimate 
associated with the existing Sec.  236.1029(h). Table C below shows the 
marginal hourly burden increase associated with FRA's expansion of the 
reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), under the final rule. 
Consistent with the previously stated estimates, FRA assumes that 35 
host railroads will submit these biannual reports in the first year, 
and the number of applicable host railroads will increase by 1.5 
railroads, on average, each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 1,400 = (35 host railroad submissions x 40 hours) + (0 host 
railroad submissions x 20 hours). This calculation is repeated 
throughout this table.

                            Table C--Ten-Year Host Railroad Marginal Burden Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of  host   Number of  host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                                submissions       submissions     Total marginal
                                                              with marginal     with marginal     hourly burden
                                                             40-hour burden    20-hour burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0        \52\ 1,400
2.........................................................                37                 0             1,460
3.........................................................                38                 0             1,520
4.........................................................                 2                38               840
5.........................................................                 3                38               880
6.........................................................                 5                38               960
7.........................................................                 4                40               960
8.........................................................                 4                42             1,000
9.........................................................                 4                43             1,020
10........................................................                 4                45             1,060
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Total.....................................................               136               284            11,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the marginal increase, host railroads will face an 
additional reporting burden due to the change from annual to biannual 
reporting. This analysis accounts for the new burden of 48 hours for 
the first three years of a host railroad's reporting and 28 hours for 
each subsequent year to account for the changes from annual to biannual 
reporting and the expanded content requirements under Sec.  
236.1029(h). Table D below shows the new hourly burden under this final 
rule for the ten-year period of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 1,680 = (35 host railroad submissions x 48 hours) + (0 host 
railroad submissions x 28 hours). This calculation is repeated 
throughout this table.

                                 Table D--Ten-Year Host Railroad New Submissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of  host   Number of  host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                                submissions       submissions        Total new
                                                              with new  48-     with new  28-     hourly burden
                                                               hour burden       hour burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0        \53\ 1,680
2.........................................................                37                 0             1,752
3.........................................................                38                 0             1,824
4.........................................................                 2                38             1,160
5.........................................................                 3                38             1,208
6.........................................................                 5                38             1,304
7.........................................................                 4                40             1,312
8.........................................................                 4                42             1,368
9.........................................................                 4                43             1,396

[[Page 40171]]

 
10........................................................                 4                45             1,452
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................               136               284            14,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA calculated the total additional burden hours for submissions by 
multiplying the respective number of submissions with their associated 
annual burden for each individual year. The summation of the hourly 
burden is multiplied by the fully burdened wage rate of a Professional 
and Administrative employee. For purposes of this analysis, FRA uses 
the fully burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate both the costs and cost 
savings throughout this analysis.\54\ Table E provides the ten-year 
cost to the railroad industry associated with the expanded reporting 
requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board (STB) 
Professional and Administrative hourly wage rate of $44.27 burdened 
by 75-percent ($44.27 x 1.75 = $77.47).

                                                              Table E--Ten-Year Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Total annual
                                                             Total         Total new       Total new      host railroad
                         Year                           marginal  hour    submission    complete  hour  submissions cost     7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                            burden        hour burden       burden             55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................           1,400           1,680           3,080          $238,615        $238,615        $238,615
2.....................................................           1,460           1,752           3,212           248,842         232,562         241,594
3.....................................................           1,520           1,824           3,344           259,068         226,280         244,196
4.....................................................             840           1,160           2,000           154,945         126,481         141,797
5.....................................................             880           1,208           2,088           161,763         123,408         143,724
6.....................................................             960           1,304           2,264           175,398         125,056         151,300
7.....................................................             960           1,312           2,272           176,018         117,288         147,412
8.....................................................           1,000           1,368           2,368           183,455         114,246         149,166
9.....................................................           1,020           1,396           2,416           187,174         108,937         147,757
10....................................................           1,060           1,452           2,512           194,611         105,855         149,153
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................          11,100          14,456          25,556         1,979,887       1,518,730       1,754,713
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

    FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry will be 
$1.5 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 million, discounted at 3 
percent. In terms of governmental costs associated with the expanded 
reporting requirement, including the increase from annual to biannual 
reporting, FRA expects it will cost approximately $10,000, over the 
ten-year period, to review the additional data railroads will submit in 
their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 
As FRA considers these additional governmental costs to be de minimis, 
they are not included in the economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost = Total New 
Complete Hour Burden x $77.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry Business Benefits
    Currently 35 host railroads are required to submit an RFA before 
changing safety-critical elements of their PTC systems and their PTCSPs 
under Sec.  236.1021. FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the 
number of PTC-governed host railroads will increase by approximately 
14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For purposes of this analysis, 
FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 new host railroads are added each 
year, beginning in year two.
    Currently, under FRA's existing regulations and without this final 
rule, FRA estimates that host railroads would submit 67 annual RFAs to 
their PTCSPs that FRA must review and approve before those host 
railroads change and improve their PTC systems. Under this final rule, 
FRA is permitting host railroads that utilize the same type of PTC 
system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ FRA expects that permitting host railroads to submit joint 
RFAs will impact primarily host railroads implementing I-ETMS and E-
ATC because each I-ETMS system is relatively similar and 
manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and each E-ATC system is 
relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table F below shows the number of RFAs to PTCSPs that would be 
submitted under the existing regulations compared to the final rule. 
Over a ten-year period, FRA estimates that the changes described in 
this final rule will result in railroads submitting approximately 590 
fewer RFAs.

[[Page 40172]]



                                   Table F--Estimated Number of RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Approximate
                                                                number of RFAs    Approximate    Total # of RFAs
                                                                to PTCSPs per    number of RFAs     to PTCSPs
                 Current types of PTC systems                     year under     to PTCSPs per      eliminated
                                                                   existing        year under      under final
                                                                 regulations       final rule          rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II.....................................................                8                8                0
CBTC.........................................................                1                1                0
E-ATC........................................................                5                1                4
ITCS.........................................................                1                1                0
I-ETMS.......................................................               52           \57\ 4               48
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal in Year 1:......................................               67               15               52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates the current burden is 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP 
based on the existing RFA content requirements. FRA's simplification of 
the content requirements in this final rule will reduce the burden 
hours by 50 percent, resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. Table G 
provides the estimated ten-year cost to host railroads based on FRA 
simplifying the RFA process under Sec.  236.1021, in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ For I-ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total number of 
annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be reduced from 52 (under the existing 
regulation) to 4 (under the final rule)--i.e., 2 RFAs per year from 
the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system 
and 2 RFAs per year from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is 
certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system.

                                                Table G--Ten-Year Cost of Joint RFAs and Simplified RFAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Hour burden  per     Total annual
                               Year                                   Submissions        submission        cost savings      7-Percent       3-Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15                  80          $92,967         $92,967         $92,967
2................................................................                15                  80           92,967          86,885          90,259
3................................................................                15                  80           92,967          81,201          87,630
4................................................................                15                  80           92,967          75,889          85,078
5................................................................                15                  80           92,967          70,924          82,600
6................................................................                15                  80           92,967          66,284          80,194
7................................................................                15                  80           92,967          61,948          77,858
8................................................................                15                  80           92,967          57,895          75,591
9................................................................                15                  80           92,967          54,108          73,389
10...............................................................                15                  80           92,967          50,568          71,251
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150  ..................          929,670         698,669         816,818
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, FRA expects that simplifying the content requirements for 
RFAs to PTCSPs, as well as permitting host railroads utilizing the same 
type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs, will result in business 
benefits of approximately $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or 
$7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent, over the ten-year period of this 
analysis.

                               Table H--Total Ten-Year Industry Business Benefits Associated With Revised Sec.   236.1021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Cost of joint
                                                                     Current host         RFAs and         Total annual
                               Year                                 railroad costs     simplified  RFA       business        7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                    (without final     process  (with        benefits
                                                                         rule)           final rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................          $830,505             $92,967         $737,538        $737,538        $737,538
2................................................................           855,296              92,967          762,329         712,457         740,126
3................................................................           867,692              92,967          774,725         676,675         730,253
4................................................................           892,483              92,967          799,516         652,643         731,671
5................................................................           904,879              92,967          811,912         619,404         721,373
6................................................................           929,670              92,967          836,703         596,558         721,747
7................................................................           942,066              92,967          849,099         565,790         711,107
8................................................................           966,857              92,967          873,890         544,215         710,552
9................................................................           979,252              92,967          886,285         515,826         699,642
10...............................................................         1,004,044              92,967          911,077         495,565         698,264
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................         9,172,744             929,670        8,243,074       6,116,671       7,202,273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40173]]

    In addition, FRA's changes to the RFA process will result in 
savings for the government, through a reduction in time needed to 
review an RFA with the existing contents under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)-
(7). Under the final rule, FRA will review a streamlined RFA with the 
more focused information that new paragraph (m)(2) requires.
    Table I below outlines the assumptions FRA used to calculate the 
government savings. FRA's estimates assume there will be PTC system 
changes that are complex and will require additional time to review, as 
well as system changes that are less complex.

                                                   Table I--Government Administrative Cost Assumptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Average
                           Staff level                              employee  count    Average  hourly   Average  hourly       Fully        Savings per
                                                                        needed             burden             salary      burdened  rate    staff level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-15............................................................                 1                  10           $77.75         $136.07          $1,315
GS-14............................................................                 2                 105            62.34          109.10          19,171
GS-13............................................................                 2                 119            49.71           86.99          20,646
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................                 5                 234           189.81          332.17          41,132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without the final rule, FRA would be required to review and approve 
or deny all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted annually. 
FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the total cost to the 
government would be $30.4 million, undiscounted. Table J provides an 
overview of the ten-year government burden without this final rule.

                                                           Table J--Ten-Year Government Burden
                                                                  [Without final rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Government  cost
                               Year                                   Submissions      to review  each     Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                         submission            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                67             $41,132       $2,755,871      $2,755,871      $2,755,871
2................................................................                69              41,132        2,838,136       2,652,463       2,755,471
3................................................................                70              41,132        2,879,268       2,514,864       2,713,986
4................................................................                72              41,132        2,961,533       2,417,493       2,710,222
5................................................................                73              41,132        3,002,665       2,290,719       2,667,829
6................................................................                75              41,132        3,084,930       2,199,512       2,661,088
7................................................................                76              41,132        3,126,062       2,083,027       2,618,028
8................................................................                78              41,132        3,208,327       1,997,985       2,608,664
9................................................................                79              41,132        3,249,460       1,891,215       2,565,153
10...............................................................                81              41,132        3,331,724       1,812,237       2,553,489
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               740             411,324       30,437,976      22,615,387      26,609,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the changes to Sec.  236.1021 in this final rule, the 
number of RFAs that FRA will review will decrease from 67 to 15 per 
year, beginning in the first year. This reduction is the same as seen 
in the government savings estimate above. The resulting reduction means 
that the new government cost to review the RFAs will be reduced to $6.2 
million, undiscounted, over the ten-year period. Table K below outlines 
the government costs under the final rule.

                                                         Table K--Ten-Year New Government Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Government  cost
                               Year                                   Submissions      to review  each     Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                         submission      government cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15             $41,132         $616,986        $616,986        $616,986
2................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         576,622         599,016
3................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         538,899         581,568
4................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         503,644         564,630
5................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         470,696         548,184
6................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         439,902         532,218
7................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         411,124         516,716
8................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         384,228         501,666
9................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         359,091         487,054
10...............................................................                15              41,132          616,986         335,600         472,868
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150             411,324        6,169,860       4,636,793       5,420,906
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates that its changes to Sec.  236.1021 will result in a 
ten-year government savings of approximately $18.0 million, discounted 
at 7 percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.

[[Page 40174]]



                                                       Table L--Government Administrative Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Current
                                                                   government  cost   Government  cost
                                                                      to review           to review        Total annual
                              Year                                   submissions     submissions  (with     government       7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                    (without final       final rule)         savings
                                                                        rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $2,755,871            $616,986       $2,138,885      $2,138,885      $2,138,885
2...............................................................          2,838,136             616,986        2,221,150       2,075,841       2,156,456
3...............................................................          2,879,268             616,986        2,262,282       1,975,965       2,132,418
4...............................................................          2,961,533             616,986        2,344,547       1,913,849       2,145,592
5...............................................................          3,002,665             616,986        2,385,679       1,820,023       2,119,645
6...............................................................          3,084,930             616,986        2,467,944       1,759,610       2,128,870
7...............................................................          3,126,062             616,986        2,509,076       1,671,904       2,101,312
8...............................................................          3,208,327             616,986        2,591,341       1,613,757       2,106,998
9...............................................................          3,249,460             616,986        2,632,474       1,532,124       2,078,099
10..............................................................          3,331,724             616,986        2,714,738       1,476,638       2,080,621
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         30,437,976           6,169,860       24,268,116      17,978,594      21,188,896
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results

    This final rule will reduce the burden on railroads while not 
adversely affecting railroad safety. To oversee the performance and 
reliability of railroads' PTC systems, FRA is expanding the reporting 
requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA estimates 
that the total ten-year industry cost associated with the expanded 
reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h) will be $1.5 million, 
discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 million, discounted at 3 percent.
    Although FRA is expanding that reporting requirement, this final 
rule reduces the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads 
overall. For example, the simplification of RFAs to PTCSPs will reduce 
the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is permitting host 
railroads that utilize the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs 
to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of RFAs railroads 
must submit in the future.
    During the ten-year period in FRA's analysis, FRA expects that its 
changes will result in business benefits for the railroad industry of 
$6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 
percent. In addition, during the same period, FRA expects that these 
changes will produce government savings amounting to $18.0 million, 
discounted at 7 percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.
    FRA estimates that the total net benefits associated with this 
final rule will be $22.6 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $26.6 
million, discounted at 3 percent. The annualized cost savings will be 
$3.2 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $3.1 million, discounted at 3 
percent.

                                                          Table M--Total Ten-Year Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total industry       Total
                          Year                               business       government    Total industry     Total net       7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                             benefits         savings          costs         benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        $737,538      $2,138,885        $238,615      $2,637,808      $2,637,808      $2,637,808
2.......................................................         762,329       2,221,150         248,842       2,734,637       2,555,736       2,654,988
3.......................................................         774,725       2,262,282         259,068       2,777,939       2,426,359       2,618,474
4.......................................................         799,516       2,344,547         154,945       2,989,118       2,440,011       2,735,466
5.......................................................         811,912       2,385,679         161,763       3,035,828       2,316,019       2,697,294
6.......................................................         836,703       2,467,944         175,398       3,129,249       2,231,111       2,699,318
7.......................................................         849,099       2,509,076         176,018       3,182,157       2,120,406       2,665,007
8.......................................................         873,890       2,591,341         183,455       3,281,776       2,043,725       2,668,384
9.......................................................         886,285       2,632,474         187,174       3,331,585       1,939,013       2,629,984
10......................................................         911,077       2,714,738         194,611       3,431,204       1,866,348       2,629,732
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       8,243,074      24,268,116       1,979,887      30,531,303      22,576,536      26,636,455
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,214,391       3,122,605
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Regulatory 
Flexibility Certification

    The final rule will apply to all host railroads subject to 49 
U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant part, five Class II or III, short 
line, or terminal railroads, and 23 intercity passenger railroads or 
commuter railroads. FRA has determined that one of these railroads is 
considered a small entity based on revenue and employee size. 
Therefore, FRA has determined that this final rule will have an impact 
on a substantial number of small entities (one affected small entity 
out of one applicable small entity).
    However, FRA has determined that the impact on the small entity 
affected by the final rule will not be significant as the costs are 
minimal and the business benefits of this rule outweigh the costs. 
Therefore, the impact on the small entity will be positive, taking the 
form of business benefits that are greater than any new costs imposed 
on the entity.
    For the railroad industry over a ten-year period, FRA estimates 
that issuing the final rule will result in new costs of

[[Page 40175]]

$1.5 million, discounted at 7 percent, and $1.8 million, discounted at 
3 percent. FRA estimates that $37,852 (discounted at 7 percent) and 
$43,212 (discounted at 3 percent) of the total costs associated with 
implementing the final rule will be borne by a small entity. Therefore, 
less than three percent of the final rule's total costs will be borne 
by a small entity. Additionally, FRA estimates that the final rule will 
result in business benefits of $149,474, discounted at 7 percent, and 
$173,983, discounted at 3 percent, for the small entity impacted by 
this final rule. In total, for the ten-year period of this analysis, 
the final rule will result in a net benefit of $111,623, discounted at 
7 percent, and $130,770, discounted at 3 percent, for a small entity.
    Consistent with the findings in FRA's initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, and the lack of any comments received on it, the 
Administrator of FRA hereby certifies that this final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
being submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that any new or revised 
requirements, as adopted in the final rule, are marked by asterisks (*) 
in the table below. The sections that contain the current and new 
information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0553 
\58\ and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day ICR notice); 
85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day ICR notice); 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 
18, 2020) (NPRM). On June 5, 2020, OMB approved the revised ICR, 
entitled ``PTC and Other Signal Systems,'' under OMB Control No. 
2130-0553, for a period of three years, expiring on June 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The burdens associated with Forms FRA F 6180.165 (Quarterly 
PTC Progress Reports) and FRA F 6180.166 (Annual PTC Progress 
Reports) have been completed. By law, railroads' final Quarterly PTC 
Progress Reports were due on January 31, 2021, and railroads' final 
Annual PTC Progress Reports were due on March 31, 2021. See 49 
U.S.C. 20157(c)(1), (2).
    \60\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB 
Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group 
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For 
Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to 
$120 per hour. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost 
amounts to $77 per hour.
    \61\ The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures 
(Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on approximately December 31, 2021, 
per 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
    \62\ In response to a public comment, FRA revised the average 
time per submission from 12 hours, as estimated in the NPRM, to 48 
hours. In addition, for the applicable three-year period for PRA 
purposes, FRA revised the number of annual responses from 76 to 73, 
which aligns with the economic estimates in this final rule, 
including the assumption that each year 1.5 additional PTC-governed 
railroads will submit these biannual reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Total annual
     CFR section/subject \59\           Respondent universe         Total annual  responses        Average time per       Total annual     dollar cost
                                                                                                       response           burden hours   equivalent \60\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited application    42 railroads................  10 expedited applications...  5 hours.................              50           $3,850
 for approval of certain changes
 described in this section.
    --Copy of expedited            42 railroads................  10 copies...................  30 minutes..............               5              385
     application to labor union.
    --Railroad letter rescinding   42 railroads................  1 letter....................  6 hours.................               6              462
     its request for expedited
     application of certain
     signal system changes.
    --Revised application for      42 railroads................  1 application...............  5 hours.................               5              385
     certain signal system
     changes.
    --Copy of railroad revised     42 railroads................  1 copy......................  30 minutes..............              .5               39
     application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained signal  700 railroads...............  25 plan changes.............  15 minutes..............             6.3              485
 plans at all interlockings,
 automatic signal locations, and
 controlled points, and updates
 to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of automatic   700 railroads...............  10 timetable instructions...  30 minutes..............               5              385
 block, traffic control, train
 stop, train control, cab signal,
 and PTC territory in timetable
 instructions.
236.18--Software management        2 railroads.................  2 plans.....................  160 hours...............             320           24,640
 control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names,              700 railroads...............  2 modifications.............  1 hour..................               2              154
 indications, and aspects of
 roadway and cab signals shall be
 defined in the carrier's
 Operating Rule Book or Special
 Instructions. Modifications
 shall be filed with FRA within
 30 days after such modifications
 become effective.
236.587(d)--Certification and      742 railroads...............  4,562,500 train departures..  5 seconds...............           6,337          487,949
 departure test results.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety        2 railroads.................  2 RSPPs.....................  40 hours................              80            6,160
 Program Plan (RSPP)--New
 railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and approval    742 railroads...............  1 joint plan................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          240,000
 of a joint Product Safety Plan
 (PSP).
    (c)(1)--Informational filing/  742 railroads...............  0.5 filings/approval          50 hours................              25            1,925
     petition for special                                         petitions.
     approval.
    (c)(2)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  5 hours.................               1               77
     request for further data
     after informational filing.
    (d)(1)(ii)--Response to FRA's  742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  1 hour..................            0.25               19
     request for further
     information within 15 days
     after receipt of the Notice
     of Product Development
     (NOPD).
    (d)(1)(iii)--Technical         742 railroads...............  0.25 technical consultations  5 hours.................             1.3              100
     consultation by FRA with the
     railroad on the design and
     planned development of the
     product.
    (d)(1)(v)--Railroad petition   742 railroads...............  0.25 petitions..............  1 hour..................            0.25               19
     to FRA for final approval of
     NOPD.
    (d)(2)(ii)--Response to FRA's  742 railroads...............  1 request...................  50 hours................              50            3,850
     request for additional
     information associated with
     a petition for approval of
     PSP or PSP amendment.
    (e)--Comments to FRA on        742 railroads...............  0.5 comments/letters........  10 hours................               5              385
     railroad informational
     filing or special approval
     petition.
    (h)(3)(i)--Railroad amendment  742 railroads...............  2 amendments................  20 hours................              40            3,080
     to PSP.
    (j)--Railroad field testing/   742 railroads...............  1 field test document.......  100 hours...............             100            7,700
     information filing document.

[[Page 40176]]

 
236.917(a)--Railroad retention of  13 railroads with PSP.......  13 PSP safety results.......  160 hours...............           2,080          160,160
 records: Results of tests and
 inspections specified in the PSP.
    (b)--Railroad report that      13 railroads................  1 report....................  40 hours................              40            3,080
     frequency of safety-relevant
     hazards exceeds threshold
     set forth in PSP.
    (b)(3)--Railroad final report  13 railroads................  1 report....................  10 hours................              10              770
     to FRA on the results of the
     analysis and countermeasures
     taken to reduce the
     frequency of safety-relevant
     hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad Operations    13 railroads................  1 OMM update................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 and Maintenance Manual (OMM).
    (b)--Plans for proper          13 railroads................  1 plan update...............  40 hours................              40            3,080
     maintenance, repair,
     inspection, and testing of
     safety-critical products.
    (c)--Documented hardware,      13 railroads................  1 revision..................  40 hours................              40            3,080
     software, and firmware
     revisions in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad       13 railroads................  1 program...................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 Training and Qualification
 Program.
236.923(b)--Training records       13 railroads................  350 records.................  10 minutes..............              58            4,466
 retained in a designated
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
Form FRA F 6180.177--Statutory     38 railroads................  144 reports/forms...........  1 hour..................             144           11,088
 Notification of PTC System
 Failures (Under 49 U.S.C.
 20157(j)(4)) \61\.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's          38 railroads................  1 rule or instruction.......  40 hours................              40            4,800
 additional or more stringent
 rules than prescribed under 49
 CFR part 236, subpart I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A          The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 railroad's submission of
 estimated traffic projections
 for the next 5 years, to support
 a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA,
 not to implement a PTC system
 based on reductions in rail
 traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)(4)(iii)--A railroad's      7 Class I railroads.........  1 exception request.........  40 hours................              40            3,080
     request for a de minimis
     exception, in a PTCIP or an
     RFA, based on a minimal
     quantity of PIH materials
     traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)(5)--A railroad's request   The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
     to remove a line from its
     PTCIP based on the sale of
     the line to another railroad
     and any related request for
     FRA review from the
     acquiring railroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (g)(1)(i)--A railroad's        38 railroads................  45 rerouting extension        8 hours.................             360           27,720
     request to temporarily                                       requests.
     reroute trains not equipped
     with a PTC system onto PTC-
     equipped tracks and vice
     versa during certain
     emergencies.
    (g)(1)(ii)--A railroad's       38 railroads................  45 written or telephonic      2 hours.................              90            6,930
     written or telephonic notice                                 notices.
     of the conditions
     necessitating emergency
     rerouting and other required
     information under
     236.1005(i).
    (g)(2)--A railroad's           38 railroads................  720 requests................  8 hours.................           5,760          443,520
     temporary rerouting request
     due to planned maintenance
     not exceeding 30 days.
    (h)(1)--A response to any      38 railroads................  10 requests.................  2 hours.................              20            1,540
     request for additional
     information from FRA, prior
     to commencing rerouting due
     to planned maintenance.
    (h)(2)--A railroad's request   38 railroads................  160 requests................  8 hours.................           1,280           98,560
     to temporarily reroute
     trains due to planned
     maintenance exceeding 30
     days.
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A          262 railroads...............  5 reports...................  16 hours................              80            6,160
 progress report due by December
 31, 2020, and by December 31,
 2022, from any Class II or III
 railroad utilizing a temporary
 exception under this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)(5)(vii)--A railroad's      The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
     request to utilize different
     yard movement procedures, as
     part of a freight yard
     movements exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high-      The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 speed service over 90 miles per
 hour (mph), a railroad's PTC
 Safety Plan (PTCSP) must
 additionally establish that the
 PTC system was designed and will
 be operated to meet the fail-
 safe operation criteria in
 Appendix C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (c)--An HSR-125 document       38 railroads................  1 HSR-125 document..........  3,200 hours.............           3,200          384,000
     accompanying a host
     railroad's PTCSP, for
     operations over 125 mph.
    (c)(1)--A railroad's request   38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  8,000 hours.............           2,667          205,359
     for approval to use foreign
     service data, prior to
     submission of a PTCSP.
    (d)--A railroad's request in   38 railroads................  1 request...................  1,000 hours.............           1,000          120,000
     a PTCSP that FRA excuse
     compliance with one or more
     of this section's
     requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a       264 railroads...............  1 PTCIP.....................  535Note:................             535           64,200
 railroad becomes a host railroad
 of a main line requiring the
 implementation of a PTC system,
 including the information under
 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
 236.1011.
    (a)(3)--Any new PTCIPs         264 railroads...............  1 joint PTCIP...............  267 hours...............             267           32,040
     jointly filed by a host
     railroad and a tenant
     railroad.
    (b)(1)--A host railroad's      264 railroads...............  1 document..................  8 hours.................               8              616
     submission, individually or
     jointly with a tenant
     railroad or PTC system
     supplier, of an unmodified
     Type Approval.

[[Page 40177]]

 
    (b)(2)--A host railroad's      264 railroads...............  1 PTCDP.....................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          154,000
     submission of a PTCDP with
     the information required
     under 49 CFR 236.1013,
     requesting a Type Approval
     for a PTC system that either
     does not have a Type
     Approval or has a Type
     Approval that requires one
     or more variances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (d)--A host railroad's         The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.
     submission of a PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (e)(3)--Any request for full   38 railroads................  10 confidentiality requests.  8 hours.................              80            6,160
     or partial confidentiality
     of a PTCIP, Notice of
     Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP,
     or PTCSP.
    (h)--Any responses or          38 railroads................  36 interviews and documents.  4 hours.................             144           11,088
     documents submitted in
     connection with FRA's use of
     its authority to monitor,
     test, and inspect processes,
     procedures, facilities,
     documents, records, design
     and testing materials,
     artifacts, training
     materials and programs, and
     any other information used
     in the design, development,
     manufacture, test,
     implementation, and
     operation of the PTC system,
     including interviews with
     railroad personnel.
    (j)(2)(iii)--Any additional    38 railroads................  1 set of additional           400 hours...............             400           30,800
     information provided in                                      information.
     response to FRA's
     consultations or inquiries
     about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a)-(b)--PTCIP content     The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any public comment on         38 railroads................  2 public comments...........  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host railroad's  264 railroads...............  1 PTCSP.....................  8,000 hours.............           8,000          616,000
 PTCSP meeting all content
 requirements under 49 CFR
 236.1015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (g)--A PTCSP for a PTC system  38 railroads................  0.3 PTCSPs..................  3,200 hours.............           1,067           82,159
     replacing an existing
     certified PTC system.
    (h)--A quantitative risk       38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  800 hours...............             267           20,559
     assessment, if FRA requires
     one to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent third- 38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  1,600 hours.............             533           63,960
 party assessment, if FRA
 requires one to be conducted and
 submitted.
    (b)--A railroad's written      38 railroads................  0.3 written requests........  8 hours.................               3              231
     request to confirm whether a
     specific entity qualifies as
     an independent third party.
    --Further information          38 railroads................  0.3 sets of additional        20 hours................               7              539
     provided to FRA upon request.                                information.
    (d)--A request not to provide  38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  20 hours................               7              539
     certain documents otherwise
     required under Appendix F
     for an independent, third-
     party assessment.
    (e)--A request for FRA to      38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  32 hours................              11              847
     accept information certified
     by a foreign regulatory
     entity for purposes of 49
     CFR 236.1017 and/or
     236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a       38 railroads................  1 MTEA......................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 passenger terminal main line
 track exception (MTEA).
    (c)(1)--A request for a        38 railroads................  1 request and/or plan.......  160 hours...............             160           12,320
     limited operations exception
     (based on restricted speed,
     temporal separation, or a
     risk mitigation plan).
    (c)(2)--A request for a        10 railroads................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
     limited operations exception
     for a non-Class I, freight
     railroad's track.
    (c)(3)--A request for a        7 railroads.................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
     limited operations exception
     for a Class I railroad's
     track.
    (d)--A railroad's collision    38 railroads................  0.3 collision hazard          50 hours................              17            1,309
     hazard analysis in support                                   analysis.
     of an MTEA, if FRA requires
     one to be conducted and
     submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (e)--Any temporal separation   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1).
     procedures utilized under
     the 49 CFR
     236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a)-(d)--Any RFA to a      38 railroads................  10 RFAs.....................  160 hours...............           1,600          123,200
 railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP.
    (e)--Any public comments, if   5 interested parties........  10 RFA public comments......  16 hours................             160           12,320
     an RFA includes a request
     for approval of a
     discontinuance or material
     modification of a signal or
     train control system and a
     Federal Register notice is
     published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (l)--Any jointly filed RFA to  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)-(d) and (m).
     a PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note:
     This is a new proposed
     paragraph to authorize host
     railroads to file joint RFAs
     in certain cases, but such
     RFAs are already required
     under FRA's existing
     regulations*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 40178]]

 
    (m)--Any RFA to a railroad's   38 railroads................  15 RFAs.....................  80 hours................         1,200 s           92,400
     PTCSP (* Note: Revised
     requirement. This is a new
     proposed paragraph with a
     simplified process governing
     RFAs to PTCSPs*).
236.1023(a)--A railroad's PTC      38 railroads................  2 updated lists.............  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 Product Vendor List, which must
 be continually updated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)(1)--All contractual        The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
     arrangements between a
     railroad and its hardware
     and software suppliers or
     vendors for certain
     immediate notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)(2)-(3)--A vendor's or      10 vendors or suppliers.....  10 notifications............  8 hours.................              80            6,160
     supplier's notification,
     upon receipt of a report of
     any safety-critical failure
     of its product, to any
     railroads using the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (c)(1)-(2)--A railroad's       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
     process and procedures for
     taking action upon being
     notified of a safety-
     critical failure or a safety-
     critical upgrade, patch,
     revision, repair,
     replacement, or
     modification, and a
     railroad's configuration/
     revision control measures,
     set forth in its PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (d)--A railroad's submission,  38 railroads................  2.5 notifications...........  16 hours................              40            3,080
     to the applicable vendor or
     supplier, of the railroad's
     procedures for action upon
     notification of a safety-
     critical failure, upgrade,
     patch, or revision to the
     PTC system and actions to be
     taken until it is adjusted,
     repaired, or replaced.
    (e)--A railroad's database of  38 railroads................  38 database updates.........  16 hours................             608           46,816
     all safety-relevant hazards,
     which must be maintained
     after the PTC system is
     placed in service.
    (e)(1)--A railroad's           38 railroads................  8 notifications.............  8 hours.................              64            4,928
     notification to the vendor
     or supplier and FRA if the
     frequency of a safety-
     relevant hazard exceeds the
     threshold set forth in the
     PTCDP and PTCSP, and about
     the failure, malfunction, or
     defective condition that
     decreased or eliminated the
     safety functionality.
    (e)(2)--Continual updates      38 railroads................  1 update....................  8 hours.................               8              616
     about any and all subsequent
     failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (f)--Any notifications that    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h).
     must be submitted to FRA
     under 49 CFR 236.1023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (g)--A railroad's and          38 railroads................  0.5 reports.................  40 hours................              20            1,540
     vendor's or supplier's
     report, upon FRA request,
     about an investigation of an
     accident or service
     difficulty due to a
     manufacturing or design
     defect and their corrective
     actions.
    (h)--A PTC system vendor's or  10 vendors or suppliers.....  20 reports..................  8 hours.................             160           12,320
     supplier's reports of any
     safety-relevant failures,
     defective conditions,
     previously unidentified
     hazards, recommended
     mitigation actions, and any
     affected railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (k)--A report of a failure of  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233.
     a PTC system resulting in a
     more favorable aspect than
     intended or other condition
     hazardous to the movement of
     a train, including the
     reports required under part
     233.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1029(b)(4)--A report of an en  150 host and tenant           1,000 reports...............  30 minutes..............             500           38,500
 route failure, other failure, or   railroads.
 cut out to a designated railroad
 officer of the host railroad.
    (h)--Form FRA F 6180.152--     38 railroads................  73 reports..................  48 hours................           3,504          269,808
     Biannual Report of PTC
     System Performance (*Revised
     requirement and new form *)
     \62\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1033--Communications and       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 security requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a)-(b)--A railroad's      38 railroads................  10 requests.................  40 hours................             400           30,800
 request for authorization to
 field test an uncertified PTC
 system and any responses to
 FRA's testing conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1)-(2)--Records        The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 retention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a)(3)-(4)--Records retention  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (b)--Results of inspections    38 railroads................  800 records.................  1 hour..................             800           61,600
     and tests specified in a
     railroad's PTCSP and PTCDP.
    (c)--A contractor's records    20 contractors..............  1,600 records...............  10 minutes..............             267           20,559
     related to the testing,
     maintenance, or operation of
     a PTC system maintained at a
     designated office.

[[Page 40179]]

 
    (d)(3)--A railroad's final     38 railroads................  8 final reports.............  160 hours...............           1,280           98,560
     report of the results of the
     analysis and countermeasures
     taken to reduce the
     frequency of safety-related
     hazards below the threshold
     set forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a)-(c), (e)--A            38 railroads................  2 OMM updates...............  10 hours................              20            1,540
 railroad's PTC Operations and
 Maintenance Manual (OMM), which
 must be maintained and available
 to FRA upon request.
    (d)--A railroad's              38 railroads................  1 identified new component..  1 hour..................               1               77
     identification of a PTC
     system's safety-critical
     components, including spare
     equipment.
236.1041(a)-(b) and 236.1043(a)--  38 railroads................  2 programs..................  10 hours................              20            1,540
 A railroad's PTC Training and
 Qualification Program (i.e., a
 written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training records      150 host and tenant           150 PTC training record       1 hour..................             150           11,550
 retained in a designated           railroads.                    databases.
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  N/A.........................  4,567,897 responses.........  N/A.....................          50,969        4,250,307
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the 
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells, 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, at 202-493-0440.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them via email to 
Ms. Wells at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6be99929798d8a1939a9a85b6929982d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4901262d2827671e2c25253a092d263d672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days 
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, 
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication. FRA is not authorized to 
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection 
requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if 
required.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires FRA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations having ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Id. Under Executive Order 13132, the 
agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments 
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early 
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has 
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to 
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the 
regulation.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined this final rule 
will not have a substantial direct effect on the States or their 
political subdivisions; on the relationship between the Federal 
government and the States or their political subdivisions; or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. In addition, FRA has determined this final rule does not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    This final rule could have preemptive effect by the operation of 
law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 
1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law, 
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers 
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the 
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) 
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad 
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order 
qualifies under the ``essentially local safety or security hazard'' 
exception to section 20106.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As explained above, 
FRA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications, 
other than the possible preemption of State laws under Federal railroad 
safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. Accordingly, FRA has 
determined that preparation of a federalism summary impact statement 
for this final rule is not required.

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not 
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business 
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

F. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule consistent with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council 
of Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 
771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from 
environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of 
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement 
(EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions

[[Page 40180]]

identified in an agency's NEPA implementing regulations that do not 
normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do 
not require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA 
has determined that this final rule is categorically excluded from 
detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), 
``Promulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver 
or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary 
approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of 
air or water pollutants or noise.''
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise FRA's PTC regulations 
to reduce unnecessary costs and facilitate innovation, while improving 
FRA's oversight. This final rule does not directly or indirectly impact 
any environmental resources and will not result in significantly 
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the 
final rule is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the 
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual 
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed 
environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no 
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this regulation, and 
the final rule meets the requirements for categorical exclusion under 
23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA 
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project 
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See 
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670, 
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT 
Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 2020, require DOT agencies to 
consider environmental justice principles by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT 
Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 
12898 and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, 
as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this final rule and has determined it 
will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and 
environmental effects on minority populations or low-income 
populations.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements 
specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general notice of 
proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any 
rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually 
for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule 
for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the 
agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final 
rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of 
$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

I. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires 
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any 
``significant energy action.'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has 
evaluated this final rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined 
that this final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within the 
meaning of Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236

    Penalties, Positive train control, Railroad safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA is amending 49 CFR part 236, 
as follows:

PART 236--RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE 
INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND 
TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES--

0
1. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20157, 
20301-20303, 20306, 20501-20505, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.


0
2. In Sec.  236.1003 amend paragraph (b) by adding the definitions of 
``Cut out,'' ``Initialization failure,'' and ``Malfunction'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  236.1003  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Cut out means any disabling of a PTC system, subsystem, or 
component en route (including when the PTC system cuts out on its own 
or a person cuts out the system with authorization), unless the cut out 
was necessary to exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC 
territory.
* * * * *
    Initialization failure means any instance when a PTC system fails 
to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system 
successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location 
or before entering PTC-governed territory. For the types of PTC systems 
that do not initialize by design, a failed departure test is considered 
an initialization failure for purposes of the reporting requirement 
under Sec.  236.1029(h), unless the PTC system successfully passes the 
departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or 
before entering PTC-governed territory.
* * * * *
    Malfunction means any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or 
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad's PTCSP.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  236.1021 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 40181]]

Sec.  236.1021  Discontinuances, material modifications, and 
amendments.

    (a) No changes, as defined by this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may 
be made unless:
    (1) The railroad files a request for amendment (RFA) to the 
applicable PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator; and
    (2) The Associate Administrator approves the RFA.
* * * * *
    (c) In lieu of a separate filing under part 235 of this chapter, a 
railroad may request approval of a discontinuance or material 
modification of a signal or train control system by filing an RFA to 
its PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator.
    (d) FRA will not approve an RFA to a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the 
request includes:
* * * * *
    (4) The changes to the PTCIP or PTCDP, as applicable;
* * * * *
    (l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP pursuant to this section may be 
submitted jointly with other host railroads utilizing the same type of 
PTC system. However, only host railroads with the same PTC System 
Certification classification under Sec.  236.1015(e) may jointly file 
an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any joint RFA to multiple host railroads' 
PTCSPs must include the information required under paragraph (m) of 
this section. The joint RFA must also include the written confirmation 
and statement specified under paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this 
section from each host railroad jointly filing the RFA.
    (m) No changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this 
section, may be made to an FRA-certified PTC system or an FRA-approved 
PTCSP unless the host railroad first complies with the following 
process:
    (1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP to account for each 
proposed change to its PTC system and summarizes such changes in a 
chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP;
    (2) The host railroad electronically submits the following 
information in an RFA to the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad 
Systems and Technology:
    (i) A summary of the proposed changes to any safety-critical 
elements of a PTC system, including a summary of how the changes to the 
PTC system would affect its safety-critical functionality, how any new 
hazards have been addressed and mitigated, whether each change is a 
planned change that was previously included in all required analysis 
under Sec.  236.1015 or an unplanned change, and the reason for the 
proposed changes, including whether the changes are necessary to 
address or resolve an emergency or urgent issue;
    (ii) Any associated software release notes;
    (iii) A confirmation that the host railroad has notified any 
applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated 
effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant 
railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control 
measures set forth in the host railroad's PTCSP;
    (iv) A statement from a qualified representative of the host 
railroad, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all 
technical requirements under this subpart, provide an equivalent or 
greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely 
impact interoperability with any tenant railroads; and
    (v) Any other information that FRA requests; and
    (3) A host railroad shall not make any changes, as specified under 
paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC system until the 
Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems and Technology approves 
the RFA.
    (i) FRA will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the RFA 
within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph 
(m)(2) of this section.
    (ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that changes may 
proceed prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or under 
other circumstances necessitating a railroad's immediate implementation 
of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
    (iii) FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA or its PTC 
system to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the 
requirements of this part.
    (iv) Following any FRA denial of an RFA, each applicable railroad 
is prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until 
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and 
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with paragraph (l) of 
this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system, 
including the same certification classification under Sec.  
236.1015(e), may jointly submit information to address FRA's questions, 
comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this 
section.

0
4. Amend Sec.  236.1029 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  236.1029  PTC system use and failures.

* * * * *
    (h) Biannual Report of PTC System Performance. (1) Each host 
railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this subpart shall 
electronically submit a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance on 
Form FRA F 6180.152, containing the following information for the 
applicable reporting period, separated by the host railroad, each 
applicable tenant railroad, and each PTC-governed track segment (e.g., 
territory, subdivision, district, main line, branch, or corridor), 
consistent with the railroad's PTC Implementation Plan:
    (i) The total number of PTC system initialization failures, and 
subtotals identifying the number of initialization failures where the 
source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, 
communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC 
component;
    (ii) The total number of PTC system cut outs, and subtotals 
identifying the number of cut outs where the source or cause was the 
onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back 
office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iii) The total number of PTC system malfunctions, and subtotals 
identifying the number of malfunctions where the source or cause was 
the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, 
back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iv) The total number of enforcements by the PTC system;
    (v) The number of enforcements by the PTC system in which an 
accident or incident was prevented;
    (vi) The number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC 
system; and
    (vii) The number of train miles governed by the PTC system.
    (2) A host railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) shall also include a summary of any actions the 
host railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to reduce the 
frequency and rate of initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions, such as any actions to correct or eliminate systemic 
issues and specific problems.
    (3) Each host railroad shall electronically submit a Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA by the 
following due dates: July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to 
June 30), and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December 
31 of the prior calendar year).
    (4) Each tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main line(s), unless the tenant railroad is currently subject 
to an exception under

[[Page 40182]]

Sec.  236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the information required 
under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section to each applicable host 
railroad on a continuous basis.
    (5) Any railroad operating a PTC system classified under FRA Type 
Approval Nos. FRA-TA-2010-001 or FRA-TA-2013-003 must begin submitting 
the metric required under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section not 
later than January 31, 2023.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15544 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>